Jessie Watson v. MARTIN VEAL and BONCARROS

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JESSIE WATSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARTIN VEAL and BONCARROS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-15664
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02672-MCE-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison England, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jessie Watson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-15664 2
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Watson did not
exhaust his prison grievance remedies. 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).
Watson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --