With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". review, see Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir.1999) (stating a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo), we conclude dismissal was proper because the record before the district court showed Baker did not complete the third step of Pottawattamie County Jail’s grievance procedure, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (declaring, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions ... by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining the proper exhaustion of remedies “means using all steps that the [prison] holds out, and doing so properly ”); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>), and nothing in the record indicates this step

A: holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court
B: holding there is no statutory requirement that a taxpayer exhaust administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the tax court
C: holding that under the plra an inmate must exhaust available remedies prior to filing suit
D: holding an inmate must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit and if exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing dismissal is mandatory
D.