Case Name: Michael Paul WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-30
Citations: 320 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 07-17066
Parties: Michael Paul WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 728–728

Head Matter:
Michael Paul WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-17066.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 30, 2009.
Michael Paul Williams, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
Jennifer J. Nygaard, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Paul Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Williams did not properly exhaust prison grievance procedures prior to filing suit in federal court. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that § 1997e(a) cannot be satisfied "by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal").
Williams' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny Williams's motion to submit a late exhibit, which we construe as a motion to supplement the record on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) (explaining that documents not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.