Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Rakim Jihad Shabazz appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing, without prejudice, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Sha-bazz’s denial of access to the courts claim for the reasons stated by the district court. See Shabazz v. Maynard, No. CA-02-1208-10-BD (D.S.C. Nov. 29, 2002). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Sha-bazz’s other claims, but on the alternate ground of failure to exhaust available ad *768 ministrative remedies. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). Accepting, as we must, Shabazz’s allegations that at the time they placed him on grievance restriction, Defendants returned to him a large number of grievances that had not been processed, Shabazz does not allege that he was barred from filing all subsequent grievances or that any subsequent grievances were returned unprocessed. Under the grievance restriction, he was not barred from filing grievances, but was limited to three grievances per month. Because the grievance system was available to him, albeit on a limited basis, dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is proper.

Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.