With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2002) . We are not persuaded by Auer’s arguments on appeal regarding his inability to exhaust his claims. We construe the district court’s order as dismissing the retaliation claim without prejudice. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissing without prejudice). However, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the remaining defendants based on Auer’s purported failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We conclude that Auer exhausted the administrative process by filing grievances complaining about defendants’ alleged excessive force and by appealing through all available levels of administrative review. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the district court erred by ruling

A: holding that dismissal under 42 usc  1997ea was required even though case had gone to trial as inmate had failed to exhaust administrative remedies
B: holding that 42 usc  1997ea requires prisoners to exhaust a process and not a remedy
C: holding that proper exhaustion under 42 usc  1997ea is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules
D: holding that 42 usc  1997ea requires dismissal without prejudice where a prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit
B.