Case Name: Phillip J. ROSENBLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON MEDICAL OFFICIALS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 427 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 09-17555
Parties: Phillip J. ROSENBLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON MEDICAL OFFICIALS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 611–611

Head Matter:
Phillip J. ROSENBLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON MEDICAL OFFICIALS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-17555.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 20, 2011.
Phillip J. Rosenblum, Delano, CA, pro se.
Samantha H. Ramsey, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Phillip J. Rosenblum, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rosenblum's action because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was excused from doing so. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that "proper exhaustion" is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
Rosenblum's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.