Case Name: Cesar ENCISO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALCATAR; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-04
Citations: 667 F. App'x 915
Docket Number: No. 15-15956
Parties: Cesar ENCISO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALCATAR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 915–916

Head Matter:
Cesar ENCISO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALCATAR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15956
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
August 04, 2016
Cesar Enciso, Chowchilla, CA, Pro se.
Arthur B. Mark, III, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
California state prisoner Cesar Enciso appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Enciso failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because the grievance he filed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility did not sufficiently alert prison officials to the nature of the -wrong underlying his deliberate indifference claims against defendants at North Kern State Prison and Corcoran State Prison. See Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2016) (a grievance only suffices "if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Enciso's contentions regarding the timeliness of his grievance and tolling are without merit.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.