22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T47a,MEMORANDUM The district court did not clearly err by concluding that Albert Hayes- (“Hayes”) still had administrative remedies available to him once he received a copy of the first-level response to his grievance. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3085(b). Accordingly, dismissal of his action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was proper. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003) (the proper remedy for non-exhaustion is dismissal without prejudice). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes’s post-judgment motion to correct the docket. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4a7,

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not clearly err by concluding that Albert Hayes- (“Hayes”) still had administrative remedies available to him once he received a copy of the first-level response to his grievance. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3085(b). Accordingly, dismissal of his action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was proper. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003) (the proper remedy for non-exhaustion is dismissal without prejudice).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes’s post-judgment motion to correct the docket. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.