Oromde

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Glynn Ward appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ward’s claims against defendant Swift because Ward failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to these claims. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 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).

Summary judgment was proper on Ward’s excessive force claims because Ward failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted maliciously or sadistically to cause harm when Ward was handcuffed during transport for Ward’s…