With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Olaf Peter Juda, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his Bivens action alleging due process and Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Juda’s action because he conceded in his First Amended Complaint that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001); see also Wyatt v. Terhune, 305 F.3d 1033, 1045-46 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). To the extent Juda contends that he did

A: holding that a routine dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not count as a strike under  1915g
B: holding that summary judgment as to one of plaintiffs claims was appropriate bjecause plaintiff concedes that he cannot establish an essential element of this claim
C: holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection
D: recognizing that dismissal may be proper where plaintiff concedes the failure to exhaust
D.