Case Name: Albert HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. ROSSER, Individual, employed as a correctional officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Sullivan, individual and official capacity (first name unknown), Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-16
Citations: 403 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 09-56495
Parties: Albert HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. ROSSER, Individual, employed as a correctional officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Sullivan, individual and official capacity (first name unknown), Defendant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 403
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
Albert HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. ROSSER, Individual, employed as a correctional officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Sullivan, individual and official capacity (first name unknown), Defendant.
No. 09-56495.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.
Filed Nov. 16, 2010.
Albert Hayes, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Suzanne Antley, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, 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
The district court did not clearly err by concluding that Albert Hayes- ("Hayes") still had administrative remedies available to him once he received a copy of the first-level response to his grievance. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3085(b). Accordingly, dismissal of his action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was proper. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) ("proper exhaustion" under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003) (the proper remedy for non-exhaustion is dismissal without prejudice).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes's post-judgment motion to correct the docket. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.