MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Thomas Dale Morgan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Turner failed to protect him from an attack by other inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

*787 The district court properly dismissed Morgan’s action without prejudice because Morgan did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 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); Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2012) (a grievance must give prison officials notice of the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought). Moreover, Morgan failed to show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. Cf. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are “effectively unavailable”).

AFFIRMED.