John B. Odoms v. Howard Skolnik;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOHN B. ODOMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOWARD SKOLNIK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16604
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00223-RCJ-VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner John B. Odoms appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
JUL 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16604 2
review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear
error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.
2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Odoms’s action because he failed to
exhaust administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95
(2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to
administrative procedural rules).
Odoms’s remaining contentions, including his challenge to the validity of
Nevada Department of Corrections Administrative Regulation 740, are
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --