Case Name: Roman McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike WICK, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-23
Citations: 310 F. App'x 143
Docket Number: No. 07-35805
Parties: Roman McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike WICK, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 143–143

Head Matter:
Roman McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike WICK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-35805.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 23, 2009.
Roman McCarthy, Deer Lodge, MT, pro se.
Roger T. Witt, Ugrin Alexander Zadick & Higgins, PC, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Roman McCarthy, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's order dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because McCarthy did not complete the prison grievance process prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that proper exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires compliance with the administrative grievance system's procedural rules).
We deny McCarthy's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (requiring "exceptional circumstances" for the appointment of counsel).
McCarthy's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.