Case Name: Tony FRENCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; T. Payne, Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-10
Citations: 542 F. App'x 563
Docket Number: No. 12-36038
Parties: Tony FRENCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; T. Payne, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
Tony FRENCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; T. Payne, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-36038.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 10, 2013.
Tony French, Ontario, OR, pro se.
Tiffany Keast, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Oregon state prisoner Tony French appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for clear error any underlying factual findings. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed French's action without prejudice because French did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that "proper exhaustion" is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). French's argument on appeal that his grievances and related papers were "mysteriously" lost is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.