Case Name: Jeff AIDNIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill RUSSELL, Supervisor Plant OP and Shawn O'Conner, Plant Manager, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-22
Citations: 389 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 09-16638
Parties: Jeff AIDNIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill RUSSELL, Supervisor Plant OP and Shawn O’Conner, Plant Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
Jeff AIDNIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill RUSSELL, Supervisor Plant OP and Shawn O’Conner, Plant Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16638.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 22, 2010.
Jeff Aidnik, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Kathleen J. Williams, Esquire, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Jeff Aidnik, 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 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, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Aidnik conceded that he failed to exhaust prison grievance procedures prior to filing suit. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 ("A prisoner's concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal _"); see also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies regardless of the type of relief sought); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing suit).
Aidnik'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.