With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Charles Singleton, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting motions to dismiss and for summary judgment in Singleton’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging interference with the free exercise of his Muslim religion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Singleton’s claim that defendant Perez confiscated his Koran. Williams failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing his original complaint. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2002) (per cu-riam) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly granted summary

A: holding that 42 usc  1997ea requires prisoners to exhaust a process and not a remedy
B: holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court
C: holding that dismissal under 42 usc  1997ea was required even though case had gone to trial as inmate had failed to exhaust administrative remedies
D: holding that 42 usc  1997ea requires dismissal without prejudice where a prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit
D.