MEMORANDUM **

Former California state prisoner Gerald Reynolds, Jr., appeals pro se from the *689 district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Reynolds’s action because Reynolds failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pri- or 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); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies pri- or to filing suit).

To the extent that Reynolds alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights in the processing of his grievance, he fails to state a claim because Reynolds has no constitutional right to a specific prison grievance procedure. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.