Bryan Dennie v. Brian E. Williams;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYAN DENNIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15764
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00828-KJD-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Bryan Dennie appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants denied
him adequate ventilation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15764 2
review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and for
clear error the district court’s underlying factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune,
315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dennie’s action because Dennie did
not exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning his claim and failed to show
that exhaustion was effectively unavailable. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,
93-95 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner
consistent with prison policies); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir.
2010) (excusing prisoner’s failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from
doing so).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --