Case Name: Mark Steven BAIRD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.A. TERHUNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-30
Citations: 43 F. App'x 132
Docket Number: No. 01-56427; D.C. No. CV-00-04604-CRM
Parties: Mark Steven BAIRD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.A. TERHUNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 43
Pages: 132–133

Head Matter:
Mark Steven BAIRD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.A. TERHUNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-56427.
D.C. No. CV-00-04604-CRM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2002 .
Decided July 30, 2002.
Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mark Steven Baird, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.
Because Baird failed to pursue his grievances to the final level of the administrative process, and exhaustion of administrative remedies is now mandatory, the district court properly dismissed Baird's action. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739-41, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).
Given our resolution of the exhaustion question, we need not address Baird's remaining contentions.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.