
    Arthur T. BUSSIERE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CANO, Correctional Counselor II; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15719.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    March 17, 2014.
    Arthur T. Bussiere, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    
      Benjamin Robert Dore, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAYY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Arthur T. Bus-siere appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging constitutional violations arising from assaults on him by other inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and for clear error the district court’s factual findings. Morton v. Hall 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bussiere’s claim against defendant Lopez because Bussiere failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Morton, 599 F.3d at 946 (explaining that “a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought,” and concluding that inmate grievance that did not refer to an assault was insufficient to put prison officials on notice of prisoner’s complaint about an assault) (citation and quotation marks omitted); cf. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-23 (9th Cir.2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are rendered “effectively unavailable”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     