
    Darrin M. GASPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. SANCHEZ, Security Captain at RJDSP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-55760
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    Darrin M. Gasper, Pro Se
    Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Darrin M. Gasper, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for fáilure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act action alleging retaliation and disability discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gasper failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[Pjroper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances under which exhaustion may be excused).

Gasper’s challenge to the district court’s failure to resolve his motion for a preliminary injunction is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial of a preliminary injunction would have no practical consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).

We reject as meritless Gasper’s contention that the district court erred in failing to return conformed copies of filings.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     