### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60451 Summary Calendar

ALEXANDER NODARSE, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. ROSE, Correctional Counseler; PATERSON, Unit Manager; S MITH, Grievance Coordinator; BOBBY PHILLIPS, Warden, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:10-CV-143

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alexander Nodarse, a C a l ifornia i nmate (# F-89636) housed in a private prison i n Mississippi, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure t o exhaust his administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Nodarse’s suit c laimed t h at his constitutional rights were violated when, during a search of his cell, his headphones and CD player were broken and his legal documents were taken. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Nov em ber 8, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60451 Document: 00512434906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2013No. 12-60451

We review t h e d i s trict court’s dismissal de novo, see Powe v. Ennis , 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999). We do not consider Nodarse’s assertion, raised for the f irst time on appeal, that the defendants tampered with an unnamed witness. See Leverette v . Louisville Ladder Co. , 1 8 3 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Koch v. Puckett , 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). Nodarse h as not shown that he properly exhausted t he requir e d t h r e e - s t e p grievance p r ocess. See Woodford v . Ngo , 5 48 U.S. 81, 83-84, 89-93, 100 (2006). While Nodarse states on appeal t hat he c ompleted the s econd step of the process by sending a 14-101B form t o the g rievance coordina t o r regarding his claim against Correctional C ounselor Rose, the o nly 14-101B form contained within the district court record pertained to a complaint about a matter u nrelated to the claims that are the subject o f the instant lawsuit. Nodarse has not alleged with sufficient specificity that he attempted to comply with the 14-101B r equirement in connection with the claims raised in his § 1983 suit. Moreover, e ven if Nodarse filed a proper 14-101B form with respect to his claims against Correctional Counselor Rose, the district court pr operly found that he f

a i led to complete the administrative remedy process. Nodarse’s 602 f o r m w a s n o t r e v iewed because the appeals coordinator determined th a t N o d a r s e had not completed the s econd step of the grievance process and b ecause the 602 form included claims unrelated t o his u nderlying grievance. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 83. N odarse’s failure to pursue his grievance remedy to c o nclusion constituted a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Wright v. Hollingsworth , 260 F.3d 357, 3 5 8 (5th Cir. 2001). Finally, Nodarse has not shown that he h as exhausted his claims against the r e maining defendants for allegedly failing to properly administer the grievance process. The district court’s dismissal of Nodarse’s § 1983 s uit is AFFIRMED. His motions for the appointment of counsel are D ENIED. See Cooper v . S h eriff, Lubbock County, Tex. , 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 ( 5th Cir. 1991). His motion to change venue if his case is remanded to the district court is DENIED as moot.
2 Case: 12-60451 Document: 00512434906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2013