ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND DECLINING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 43), the objections of Defendants Fetroe, Johnson, and Klauk ("Defendants") to the R&R (Dkt. 46), and Plaintiff's objections to the R&R (Dkts. 49, 50).

The background of this case is set out in full by the R&R. Dkt. 43 at 2-13. On August 24, 2017, Judge Fricke entered an R&R recommending that summary judgment be granted in favor of Defendants. Dkt. 43. On September 1, 2017, Defendants filed their objections. Dkt. 46. On October 4 and 5, 2017, the Court received letters from Plaintiff objecting to the R&R. Dkts. 49, 50.

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Defendants request that the Court consider newly submitted evidence that was cited in their initial motion for summary judgment but inadvertently omitted from the supporting exhibits. Dkt. 46 at 3. In support of their request, Defendants have submitted the previously omitted excerpts from a deposition of Plaintiff wherein he admits that he did not file any administrative grievances regarding (1) an alleged assault by a fellow inmate while he was being transported or (2) the Clallam Bay Correction Center's failure to provide him with a second mattress.1 Dkt. 47-1 at 3-7. In light of the submitted evidence, it is clear that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies before initiating his present claims based on these allegations. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust should be granted—although doing so seems unnecessary, as the R&R has already recommended that these claims be dismissed on other grounds.

Additionally, Defendants note that the R&R appears to conclude that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. 46 at 3-4. See also Dkt. 43 at 28. However, the exclusive basis for dismissing several of Plaintiff's claims is his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As noted in the R&R, "[i]f a prisoner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate." Dkt. 43 at 17 (citing Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014)). Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff's claims are dismissed based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies, dismissal should be without prejudice.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has submitted two letters objecting to the R&R. Dkts. 49, 50. However, in these letters, Plaintiff merely restates his arguments in opposition to summary judgment without assigning any error or deficiency to the R&R's analysis. See Dkt. 50. The Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R and therefore adopts it.

The Court having considered the R&R, the parties' objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:

(1) The R&R (Dkt. 43) is ADOPTED in part and DECLINED in part as described above;

(2) The motion for summary judgment of Defendants Fetroe, Johnson, and Klauk (Dkt. 31) is GRANTED; and

(3) To the extent that any of Plaintiff's claims are dismissed solely on the basis of his failure to exhaust administrative remedies, those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Because there are no issues outstanding upon the Court's adoption of the R&R, the clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case.