Case Name: Shawn SHUMATE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Don MILLS, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Oregon Department of Corrections; et al., Defendants - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 329 F. App'x 172
Docket Number: No. 08-35883
Parties: Shawn SHUMATE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Don MILLS, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Oregon Department of Corrections; et al., Defendants — Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
Shawn SHUMATE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Don MILLS, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Oregon Department of Corrections; et al., Defendants — Appellees.
No. 08-35883.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 27, 2009.
Shawn Shumate, Salem, OR, pro se.
Denise Gale Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shawn Shumate, an Oregon 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 disti'ict court's factual determinations for clear error, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Shumate did not complete the prison grievance process prior to filing suit, and failed to demonstrate that he was obstructed from doing so. 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).
Shumate'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.