Case Name: De'Marian A. CLEMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Sr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 517 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 12-16792
Parties: De’Marian A. CLEMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Sr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 517
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
De’Marian A. CLEMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Sr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16792.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 23, 2013.
De’Marian A. Clemons, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Catherine Cortez Masto, Esquire, Attorney General, Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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
Nevada state prisoner De'Marian A. Clemons appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference to 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 dismissed Clemons's action because Clemons did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (proper exhaustion is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
We do not consider Clemons's allegations concerning retaliation raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.