*189MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Michael James Hicks appeals pro se from the district ■court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Hicks’s failure to appeal his inmate grievance beyond the first level of review did not constitute proper exhaustion. 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); see also CaLCode Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5 (setting forth the various levels of review in the administrative-grievance system for California inmates).

AFFIRJMED.