
    Rex Jeffrey WALLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHAN, Doctor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16750.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 26, 2012.
    Rex Jeffrey Walls, Florence, AZ, pro se.
    Scott A. Alies, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, LLP, Karen Karr, Esquire, Clark Hill PLC, Scottsdale, AZ, Dominique K. Barrett, Esquire, Tara Lynn Stromberg, Esquire, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, David J. Wilson, Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Rex Jeffrey Walls appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Walls’s Eighth Amendment claims because Walls failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his hernia. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-35, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (holding Eighth Amendment claim requires prison official to have a sufficiently culpable state of mind).

The district court properly dismissed Walls’s First Amendment claim regarding his religious dietary restrictions because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to this claim. 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).

Walls’s remaining contentions, including his argument regarding the unauthorized use of his medical records, are unavailing.

Walls’s “Motion to Withdraw All Appellant Medical Files From Attorney” and his motion for default judgment are denied.

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