Carl R. Brandon, Mississippi prisoner # 130780, appeals the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and its concomitant dismissal, for want of exhaustion, of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit that he filed to challenge the living conditions to which he was subjected as a pretrial detainee. In his brief to this court, Brandon insists that he exhausted his administrative remedies, and he also argues that application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) infringes his right of access to courts.

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010). “The court shall grant summary judgment if the mov-ant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “The PLRA requires exhaustion of such administrative remedies as are available.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 217, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Our review of the record and Brandon’s arguments shows that he has failed to establish compliance with the procedural rules of the grievance process adopted by the Claiborne County Jail. He has likewise failed to show error in connection with the district court’s judgment. We decline to consider Brandon’s access to courts claim because it is raised for the first time in this appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.