In this pro se civil-rights action, federal prisoner Clifford Schuett appeals after the District Court 1 dismissed his lawsuit without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He has also moved for appointment of counsel.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we conclude that dismissal was appropriate. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (requiring exhaustion of available administrative remedies before a prisoner may bring a federal action challenging prison conditions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)); King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.) (reviewing de novo a dismissal under § 1997e(a)), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 966, 131 S.Ct. 499, 178 L.Ed.2d 296 (2010); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Under the plain language of section 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court.”); see also McAlphin v. Toney, 375 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“[A] claim falling within the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) must nonetheless meet the mandatory exhaustion requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).”).

We affirm the District Court and deny Schuett’s motion for appointment of counsel.