Arkansas inmate Xavier Cravenwolfe appeals after the district court 1 dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice, following its determination that Cra-venwolfe failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

We conclude that the district court did not err in its determination, as the record showed beyond genuine dispute that Cra-venwolfe omitted material information that was required on a grievance appeal form. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 by prisoner until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted); King v. Iowa Dep’t. of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of district court’s interpretation of § 1997e(a)); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (prison’s administrative exhaustion requirements govern whether exhaustion has occurred); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (proper exhaustion demands compliance with prison’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules); Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (inmate’s subjective beliefs *904 about grievance process cannot excuse exhaustion requirement).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot Cravenwolfe’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.