MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Chester Ray Wiseman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights in connection with the denial of outdoor exercise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust and for clear error any underlying factual findings. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wiseman’s action without prejudice because Wiseman failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (requiring proper and timely exhaustion of prisoner claims). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Wiseman failed to pursue all levels of administrative grievances available to him. Cf. Sapp, 623 F.3d at 822-23 (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are rendered “effectively unavailable”).

AFFIRMED.