Case Name: Mark A. STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James BACA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-29
Citations: 469 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 10-17898
Parties: Mark A. STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James BACA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Mark A. STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James BACA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17898.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 29, 2012.
Mark A. Stevens, Carson City, NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of The Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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 Mark A. Stevens appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 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 the action because Stevens failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stevens's motion to amend or alter the judgment because Stevens provided no basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration un der Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.