Case Name: Jesse Lee SHAVERS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. CLARK; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-22
Citations: 513 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 12-15596
Parties: Jesse Lee SHAVERS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. CLARK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 686–687

Head Matter:
Jesse Lee SHAVERS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. CLARK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-15596.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 22, 2013.
Jesse Lee Shavers, Jr., Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Megan R. O’Carroll, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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 Jesse Lee Shavers, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and failure to protect. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shavers's action because Shavers failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 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); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies pri- or to filing suit).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.