Robert James Crosby appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, which challenged the revocation of his mandatory supervised release and the subsequent denial of parole. We have reviewed the record in this case and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Crosby v. Warden, No. CA-03-1191-WDQ (D. Md. filed Feb. 26, 2004 & entered Mar. 1, 2004). In addition, we note that Crosby’s claim that he was improperly subjected to drug testing was waived by his admission to violations of his release. Further, Crosby’s claim that he was entitled to “necessary aftercare” was not exhausted, has been procedurally defaulted, and cannot be reviewed on the merits. See Hamm v. Saffle, 300 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002) (state prisoner bringing § 2241 petition must exhaust state and administrative remedies). 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