Case Name: Gerald REYNOLDS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. STARCEVICH, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-22
Citations: 513 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 12-15662
Parties: Gerald REYNOLDS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. STARCEVICH, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 688–689

Head Matter:
Gerald REYNOLDS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. STARCEVICH, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-15662.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 22, 2013.
Gerald Reynolds, Jr., Susanville, CA, pro se.
Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Martin Kosla, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Former California state prisoner Gerald Reynolds, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Reynolds's action because Reynolds failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pri- or to filing suit. 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); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies pri- or to filing suit).
To the extent that Reynolds alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights in the processing of his grievance, he fails to state a claim because Reynolds has no constitutional right to a specific prison grievance procedure. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.