ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Petitioner-Appellant Mohammed Majid, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to proceed on this appeal without prepayment of fees. Because Majid did not exhaust available administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), we AFFIRM the district court.

I. Background

Majid is a federal inmate serving a 57-month sentence for interstate travel in aid of racketeering, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). The instant lawsuit is the result of his alleged mistreatment by federal and Oklahoma state officials during his pretrial incarceration at the Oklahoma County Detention Center (OCDC). Majid alleges that he was (1) denied requested medical treatment, (2) denied his First Amendment right to practice Islam, (3) retaliated against for the exercise of his First Amendment rights, (4) denied access to the courts, and (5) verbally harassed by OCDC officials and two U.S. Marshals supervising his incarceration in the state facility. The district court dismissed all Majid’s claims for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies at OCDC. Majid now asks this court to overturn that dismissal and to allow his appeal to proceed informa pauperis.

II. Discussion

Exhaustion of available administrative remedies is required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) for all prisoner lawsuits with respect to prison conditions, including alleged constitutional violations. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269, 1281 (10th Cir. 2006). The district court properly noted that (1) OCDC administrative relief was available to Majid as demonstrated by his successful *647 use of OCDC grievance procedures on at least one prior occasion, and (2) Majid’s contention that OCDC relief was not available to him was without supporting evidence. We agree that Majid has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth by the district court in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Majid’s § 1983 and Bivens claims for failure to exhaust. We further AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Majid’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees and DENY his motion to proceed informa pauperis.