MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner James Cato, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s application of substantive law and review for clear error the district court’s factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

*319The district court properly dismissed the action because Cato did not properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that “proper exhaustion” requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

Cato’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.