With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in his EEOC Charge. See EEOC Charge at 2. The exhaustion of administrative remedies is a “jurisdictional prerequisite.” Jones v. Runyon, 91 F.3d at 1399 (“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under Title VII.”). Because Gerald failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for his retaliation claim, and for his claims against Krebs and Locksley, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over these unexhausted claims. Nonetheless, Gerald improperly brings these claims again in his SAC. Gerald concedes that he cannot seek relief against Locksley and Krebs. See Response at 11. The Court therefore, again, dismisses these claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d at 1216 (<HOLDING>); Martinez v. Richardson, 472 F.2d at 1126 (“It

A: holding a district court lost subjectmatter jurisdiction over the merits of the case when it issued an order of dismissal without prejudice
B: holding that dismissal for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction must be without prejudice because the court having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying claims emphasis in original
C: holding that because the circuit court did not have subjectmatter jurisdiction over the unlawfuldetainer action the district courts unauthorized transfer of the action could not transfer jurisdiction over that action to the circuit court
D: holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over an injunction bond even where the underlying dispute had itself been dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction
B.