Case Name: Michael RYTTING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray ALLEN, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-29
Citations: 325 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 06-15858
Parties: Michael RYTTING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray ALLEN, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 535–535

Head Matter:
Michael RYTTING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray ALLEN, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-15858.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 29, 2009.
Michael Rytting, Ely, NV, pro se.
Eddie S. Gulbenkian, Esq., Jill C. Da-vis, Esq., Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Rytting, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that Rytting failed to exhaust prison grievance procedures prior to filing suit in federal court. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that "proper exhaustion" requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (holding that exhaustion under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) must occur prior to commencement of the action). We construe the district court's dismissal to be without prejudice. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach any alternate bases for dismissal relied upon by the district court.
Rytting's pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.