
    Jimmy D. BIZZELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND JUVENILE DETENTION, AKA RJC, Maleng Regional Justice Center, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-36031
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 30, 2017
    Jimmy D. Bizzell, Pro Se
    Richard L. Anderson, Esquire, King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jimmy D. Bizzell, a former pretrial detainee, appeals pro se from -the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his inability to access religious services, meals, and head coverings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168-71 (summary judgment is proper procedural vehicle for determining exhaustion). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper because Bizzell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Ross v. Blake, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (describing limited circumstances under which administrative remedies are deemed unavailable); 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); see also Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court must dismiss a case without prejudice when there is no presuit exhaustion, even if there is exhaustion while suit is pending.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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