Case Name: James E. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy A. CASTRO, Warden; et al., Defendants, and Imam Mohamed, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-20
Citations: 97 F. App'x 792
Docket Number: No. 03-15732
Parties: James E. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy A. CASTRO, Warden; et al., Defendants, and Imam Mohamed, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 792–792

Head Matter:
James E. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy A. CASTRO, Warden; et al., Defendants, and Imam Mohamed, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-15732.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 20, 2004.
James E. Smith, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Allen Robert Crown, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Constance Picciano, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
Tami M. Warwick, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner James E. Smith appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because defendant presented evidence demonstrating that Smith failed to complete the grievance process through the final level of review. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119.
To the extent that Smith argues that his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, we decline to consider these contentions because they were raised for the first time on appeal. See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.2001).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.