Scott Conner v. Aaron Winslow

MEMORANDUM ** Scott Eric Conner, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in connection with a fight with another inmate and ensuing disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm. Conner waived his right to challenge the district court’s factual findings. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir.2007) (failure to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact, but does not ordinarily waive objections to purely legal conclusions). The district court properly dismissed Conner’s claims because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust prison remedies where inmate’s grievance failed to “alert[] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress [was] sought.”). Conner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.