Court Opinion

ID: 8651012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 20:25:53.57515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:32.530517
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
A review of the record indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). It does not appear that the district court erred when it dismissed this case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006); Brown v. Valoff 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir.2005).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.