Mohammed Akrum Ghafoor appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Everest and Jennings, Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 226, 228 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ghafoor’s ADEA claim because he failed to raise any allegations of age discrimination in his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge of Discrimination. See Limongelli v. Postmaster Gen., 707 F.2d 368, 373 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly dismissed
holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea recognizing the general rule that parties must exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from federal courts  holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that plaintiff could not present his erisa estoppel claim to the district court because he did not properly exhaust it before the administrative review board