Case Name: Shadale L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anita MITCHELL; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-06
Citations: 328 F. App'x 530
Docket Number: No. 07-16733
Parties: Shadale L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Anita MITCHELL; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 530–531

Head Matter:
Shadale L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Anita MITCHELL; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-16733.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 06, 2009.
Shadale L. Williams, lone, CA, pro se.
Damon G. McClain, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shadale L. Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's application of substantive law de novo and its factual determinations for clear error, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams's action because Williams did not complete the prison grievance process pri- or to filing suit, and therefore failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that "proper exhaustion" under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
Williams'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.