GARRETT v. GASTELO (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Craig Kaiser Garrett, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jackson v. Fong, 870 F.3d 928, 932 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Garrett failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative remedies for his claim that Finander falsified a medical report, 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); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.”).

Garrett does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his remaining deliberate indifference claims in his opening brief and has therefore waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of those claims. See Paladin Assocs., Inc. v. Mont. Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.