Case Name: Thomas Randall HARGROVE; Michael Steven Novak, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-27
Citations: 488 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: Nos. 11-35470, 11-35518
Parties: Thomas Randall HARGROVE; Michael Steven Novak, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 488
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Thomas Randall HARGROVE; Michael Steven Novak, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 11-35470, 11-35518.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 27, 2012.
Thomas Randall Hargrove, pro se.
Michael Steven Novak, pro se.
Andrea Vingo, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA-Office of the Washington At torney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Washington state prisoners Thomas Randall Har-grove and Michael Steven Novak appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust. O'Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, id., and we affirm.
Dismissal for failure to exhaust was proper because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they fully exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring dismissal without prejudice when there is no pre-suit exhaustion).
Plaintiffs' contention that the district court failed to conduct a de novo review is unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.