Case Name: George Kenneth COLBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. CARRASCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 670 F. App'x 526
Docket Number: No. 15-16563
Parties: George Kenneth COLBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. CARRASCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
George Kenneth COLBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. CARRASCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16563
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 03, 2016
George Kenneth Colbert, Pro Se.
Michelle M. Mayer, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, 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
California state prisoner George Kenneth Colbert 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 a First Amendment retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Colbert failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his available administrative remedies with respect to the claim at issue in this case. See id. at 1171-72 (setting forth respective burdens where a defendant argues that a prisoner failed to exhaust under the Prison Litigation Reform Act); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 824 (9th Cir. 2010) ("A grievance suffices to exhaust a claim if it puts the prison on adequate notice of the problem for which the prisoner seeks- redress.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.