Case Name: Chester Ray WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. HERNANDEZ, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-17
Citations: 505 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 11-55599
Parties: Chester Ray WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. HERNANDEZ, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 505
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
Chester Ray WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. HERNANDEZ, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-55599.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
Filed Jan. 17, 2013.
Chester Ray Wiseman, Delano, CA, pro se.
Suzanne Antley, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, 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
California state prisoner Chester Ray Wiseman appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights in connection with the denial of outdoor exercise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust and for clear error any underlying factual findings. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wiseman's action without prejudice because Wiseman failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (requiring proper and timely exhaustion of prisoner claims). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Wiseman failed to pursue all levels of administrative grievances available to him. Cf. Sapp, 623 F.3d at 822-23 (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are rendered "effectively unavailable").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.