Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Lamond Latney appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Anthony Parker’s motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and dismissing the action due to Latney s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Although Latney argues that his institutional complaint was in fact timely and that further remedies were unavailable, the district court properly rejected those assertions. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that proper administrative exhaustion requires compliance with agency deadlines and key procedural rules); Ross v. Blake, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (clarifjdng when administrative remedies are deemed unavailable). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Latney v. Parker, No. 2:17-cv-00024-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va. July 20, 2017). We deny Latney’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED