Missouri inmate Ricky L. Maddix appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed the suit because, among other reasons, it agreed with defendants’ contentions that Maddix failed to exhaust the myriad claims raised in his complaint. Upon de novo review, see Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (this court reviews de novo application of Prison Litigation Reform Act, and for clear error district court’s findings of fact), we agree with the district court that Maddix faded to exhaust administratively any of the claims he raised in the instant lawsuit before he filed his complaint, see Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir.2003) (inmate must exhaust before filing suit, or dismissal is mandatory). Although Maddix contends that defendants thwarted his attempts to exhaust these claims, the record does not support his contention. See Sergent v. Norris, 330 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (finding no evidence in record that inmate was prevented from effectively utilizing grievance procedures).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. However, we modify the dismissal to clarify that it is without prejudice. See Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir.1998).