Powelkowski v. Walker

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING 84 Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies. The remaining stay on merits-based discovery is LIFTED and all parties can proceed with discovery on the merits of Plaintiff's claims. A new schedule will be entered by separate order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 8/29/2024. (scm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LESZEK PAWELKOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LYNN PITTMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 21-CV-882-MAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is currently before the Court on Defendant Dr. Doris Williams’ Motion
for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Docs.
84, 85). For the reasons set forth below, Dr. Williams’ Motion for Summary Judgment for
Plaintiff’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies is DENIED (Doc. 84).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Leszek Pawelkowski brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at Lawrence
Correctional Center (see Docs. 1, 28). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff
began experiencing pain in his left arm and hand beginning in August 2020 (Doc. 28 at
pp. 12-13; Doc. 36 at p. 2). Due to the pain Plaintiff was experiencing, he was unable to
perform the tasks assigned to him as a worker in the dietary unit at Lawrence (Doc. 36 at
p. 2). Thereafter, Plaintiff saw Defendant Dr. Lynn Pittman, but he claims Dr. Pittman
failed to property test, evaluate, and treat his injuries (Id.). Plaintiff also saw Defendant

Page 1 of 14

P.A. Carissa Luking for treatment of his condition in May 2021 (Id.). Plaintiff alleges P.A.
Luking told Plaintiff she would submit the paperwork needed for him to receive an MRI,
but ultimately failed to do so (Id.).
Plaintiff claims he saw Dr. Williams in May 2021 and informed her that his pain
medication was not helping and he was unable to write, properly clean himself, or get a
good night’s sleep (Id.). Plaintiff alleges Dr. Williams increased his medication but
refused to submit him for any further testing (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant
Lori Cunningham, the Healthcare Director at Lawrence, knew of his condition and need
for treatment but failed to ensure he received further treatment or testing (Id.).
Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Wexford Health Sources has a policy of
preventing inmates from receiving specialized testing and treatment, thus depriving him
of necessary medical treatment (Id.).
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on August 3, 2021 (Doc. 1; see also Doc. 25). The
Court conducted a preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and that Complaint
was dismissed without prejudice for the failure to state a claim for relief (Doc. 27).
However, Plaintiff was permitted to file an amended complaint, which he did on
December 9, 2021 (Doc. 28). The Court then conducted a preliminary review of the
Amended Complaint and Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on the following counts:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Pittman, Dr. Williams,
P.A. Luking, and Cunningham for exhibiting deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s arm/hand issues and pain.

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford for its
unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom of not allowing
inmates to receive special testing from outside medical

Page 2 of 14

providers which resulted in a denial of constitutionally
adequate medical treatment for Plaintiff’s arm/hand issues
and pain.
Count 3:

Eighth Amendment claim against Walker for denying
Plaintiff access to medical care on August 20, 2020 and
requiring him to continue working while in pain.

(Doc. 36 at pp. 3-5).1
Additionally, Plaintiff filed a motion for recruitment of counsel after his case
passed preliminary review (Doc. 72). The Court granted the motion on September 5, 2023,
and attorney Benjamin E. Waldin was appointed to represent Plaintiff (see Docs. 74, 80).
Finally, Dr. Williams filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff’s
Failure to Exhaust his Administrative Remedies and supporting memorandum on
November 30, 2023 (Doc. 84, 85). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on January 17,
2024 (Doc. 90), and Dr. Williams filed a reply in support on January 22, 2024 (Doc. 91).
LEGAL STANDARD
I.

Summary Judgment Standards
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows there is no genuine issue

as to any material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV.
P. 56(a). In making that determination, the Court “generally will construe all facts and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Apex Digital,
Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013). In other words, courts cannot
resolve factual disputes in favor of the party seeking summary judgment. See Tolan v.

Plaintiff also sought to raise three other counts in his Amended Complaint, but they were dismissed in
the Court’s Preliminary Review Order (see Doc. 36 at pp. 4-5).
1

Page 3 of 14

Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014) (“[A] judge’s function at summary judgment is not to
weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there
is a genuine issue for trial.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However,
“[t]he nonmoving party must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932, 937 (7th Cir. 2010).
II.

Exhaustion Requirements
As provided in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, “[a] prisoner may not bring a

federal suit about prison conditions unless he first has exhausted all available
administrative remedies.” Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 903 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a)). A remedy has not been exhausted if the prisoner has failed to abide by
the procedures for pursuing relief. Id. Thus, to properly exhaust one’s administrative
remedies, “a prisoner must file complaints and appeals in the place, and at the time, the
prison’s administrative rules require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir.
2002).
However, an inmate is not required to exhaust administrative remedies that are
not actually available to him. Pyles v. Nwaobasi, 829 F.3d 860, 864 (7th Cir. 2016)
(“Remedies that are genuinely unavailable or nonexistent need not be exhausted.”). The
Seventh Circuit has “found remedies unavailable in a number of instances in which the
inmate, through no fault of his own, could not have accessed the grievance procedure.”
Lanaghan v. Koch, 902 F.3d 683, 688 (7th Cir. 2018). Additionally, failure to exhaust is an

Page 4 of 14

affirmative defense that the defendants carry the burden of proving. 2 See Ramirez v.
Young, 906 F.3d 530, 533 (7th Cir. 2018).
III.

IDOC Grievance Procedures
Individuals incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) are

required to follow the grievance procedure outlined in the Illinois Administrative Code
to exhaust their administrative remedies. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.800, et seq. (2017).
To initiate the normal grievance process, an inmate must file a grievance with their
institutional counselor within 60 days of the discovery of the incident. Id. at § 504.810(a).
After the counselor provides a response, an inmate may submit his grievance to a
grievance officer who is to report his or her findings and recommendations to the Chief
Administrative Officer (the “warden”) within two months. Id. at 504.830(e). The warden
reviews the grievance officer’s findings and recommendations, and then provides a
written decision. Id. If an inmate is unsatisfied with the warden’s decision, he has 30 days
from the date of the warden’s decision to appeal to the Administrative Review Board
(ARB). Id. at § 504.850(a). The ARB then submits a written report to the Director of the
IDOC, who makes a final decision within six months, when reasonably feasible. Id. at §
504.850(e).

In most situations, when considering a motion for summary judgment based upon a prisoner’s alleged
failure to exhaust his or her administrative remedies, the Seventh Circuit has instructed courts to conduct
an evidentiary hearing and resolve contested issues of fact regarding a prisoner’s efforts to exhaust.
Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Accord Roberts v. Neal, 745 F.3d 232, 234 (7th Cir. 2014). However, an evidentiary hearing is not necessary
when there are no material factual disputes. See Doss v. Gilkey, 649 F. Supp. 2d 905, 912 (S.D. Ill. 2009) (no
hearing required where there are “no disputed facts regarding exhaustion, only a legal question”). Here,
the Court is able to rule upon Dr. Williams’ motion without conducting a hearing as there are no material
issues of fact that require a hearing to resolve. See Robinson v. Budde, No. 18-CV-6998, 2021 WL 1722857, at
*4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 2021) (“Since the parties agree on the facts, there is no need for a hearing.”).
2

Page 5 of 14

Alternatively, an inmate can request for his or her grievance to be handled on an
emergency basis by submitting the grievance directly to the warden. Id. at § 504.840. If
the warden determines the grievance should not be handled as an emergency, the inmate
is notified in writing that he or she may resubmit the grievance in accordance with the
standard grievance process. Id. at § 504.840(c). Conversely, if the warden determines the
grievance is an emergency, the warden must expedite processing of the grievance and
respond by indicating what action shall be or has been taken. Id. at § 504.840(b).
Furthermore, if an inmate appeals the warden’s decision on his or her emergency
grievance, the ARB is also required to expedite processing of the emergency grievance.
Id. at § 504.850(f).
Discussion
I.

Plaintiff’s Grievances
Dr. Williams’ motion includes an extensive record of Plaintiff’s grievance filings

from 2020 until 2023 (see Docs. 85-1, 85-2, 85-3). The Court has reviewed the grievances
and associated records provided by Dr. Williams and has limited its analysis to the
grievances that discuss Plaintiff’s medical concerns and were filed before or near May
2021, the time-period associated with Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Williams.3 However,
while the Court will briefly discuss the key grievances identified by the parties, the
Court’s analysis focuses upon Grievance 05-21-240 because that grievance is dispositive.

Additionally, the parties agree that the grievances discussed below are the key grievances pertaining to
whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies against Dr. Williams, as both Dr. Williams and
Plaintiff focused their discussion on the grievances discussed below (see generally Docs. 85, 90). Moreover,
Plaintiff did not proffer any additional grievances or associated documents to the Court in his response (see
Doc. 90).
3

Page 6 of 14

A. Grievance 08-20-257, dated August 20, 2020 (Doc. 85-3, pp. 24-25)
In this emergency grievance, Plaintiff grieved being fired from his job in the
dietary department at Lawrence after informing his supervisor that he was dealing with
pain and numbness in his hands and arms (Doc. 85-3 at p. 24). The Warden determined
that the grievance was not an emergency, which led Plaintiff to file the grievance through
the standard grievance process (Id.). Ultimately, the Grievance Officer recommended the
grievance be denied because job placements are administrative decisions, and the
position Plaintiff was working required full dexterity of both hands (Id.). The Warden
and the ARB both concurred in the denial (Id. at pp. 22-24).
B. Grievance 10-20-176, dated 10/12/2020 (Doc. 85-3, pp. 51-52)
Plaintiff filed Grievance 10-20-176 on October 12, 2020, to grieve his inability to see
a doctor for his hand and arm pain (Doc. 85-3 at p. 51). The Grievance Officer relied upon
the notes of Plaintiff’s counselor and recommended the grievance be denied as moot
because Plaintiff’s medical issues were addressed at an October 1, 2020 appointment, and
Plaintiff had multiple follow-up appointments scheduled (Id. at p. 50). The Warden
concurred in the recommendation (Id.). However, the ARB denied Plaintiff’s grievance
without further review because the grievance did not include any dates of when the
alleged incident occurred (Id. at p. 49).
C. Grievance 05-21-089, dated 5/10/2021 (Doc. 85-3, pp. 20-21)
Plaintiff filed Grievance 05-21-089 on May 10, 2021, to grieve the continued pain
he was experiencing in his hands and the failure of pain medication to alleviate his
symptoms, along with the refusal to send him to an outside facility for specialized

Page 7 of 14

treatment (Doc. 85-3 at pp. 20-21). The grievance was deemed an emergency and the
Grievance Officer recommended the grievance be denied as moot because Plaintiff was
being treated for ear issues and there was “no documentation found regarding
hand/arthritis complaint.” (Id. at p. 19). The Warden concurred in the Grievance Officer’s
recommendation, but the ARB again denied Plaintiff’s grievance without further
consideration because the grievance did not include any specific dates of when Plaintiff
was seen by the healthcare unit (Id. at pp. 18-19).
D. Grievance 05-21-240, dated 5/22/2021 (Doc. 85-3, pp. 16-17)
Plaintiff filed Grievance 05-21-240 on May 22, 2021, to grieve the continued lack of
medical treatment he was receiving for his various ailments, including his hand and arm
pain (Doc. 85-3 at pp. 16-17). In pertinent part, Plaintiff wrote, “the medical staff here turn
blind eye [to] the pain I deal with daily, my hands, chest pain, ear pain. I had a pass for
5-20-2021 at 1:00 PM which was cancel. Again I come to see that, the new Dr. Williams or
not concern about my well being.” (Id. at p. 16). The emergency grievance also stated, “I
done had several pass to see Dr. Williams, the medical director, been cancelled.” (Id.).
This grievance was deemed an emergency by the Warden on May 25, 2021 (Id.).
The Grievance Officer recommended the grievance be denied as moot because Plaintiff
was “seen by the NP on 5/24/2021.” (Id. at p. 15). The Warden concurred in the
recommendation (Id.). The grievance was then sent to the ARB and Director, who
concurred in finding the grievance moot because Plaintiff had been seen by a nurse
practitioner on May 24, 2021 (Id. at p. 14).

Page 8 of 14

II.

Analysis
Dr. Williams argues Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as it

relates to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim raised against her (see generally Doc. 85).
Specifically, Dr. Williams contends that: (1) Grievance 08-20-257 was not grieving the
same issue Plaintiff raised against her in this case, was submitted before he saw Dr.
Williams, and does not identify Dr. Williams or any conduct related to her; (2) Grievances
10-20-176 and 05-21-189 do not identify Dr. Williams or any conduct that may be
attributed to her and were not fully exhausted because the ARB denied both grievances
on procedural grounds for failing to include dates; and (3) Grievance 05-21-240 was
generally grieving Plaintiff’s call pass being cancelled and him not receiving a follow-up
with P.A. Luking, and neither “identif[ied] Dr. Williams or any conduct that can be
imputed to her” nor put prison officials on notice that Plaintiff was grieving her medical
judgment (see Doc. 85 at pp. 8-10). Plaintiff’s response focuses on Grievance 05-21-240 and
argues that it specifically complained of Dr. Williams’ care and was fully exhausted (see
Doc. 90).
Ultimately, the Court finds Grievance 05-21-240 to be dispositive. In contrast to
Grievances 10-20-176 and 05-21-189, Dr. Williams has not argued that Grievance 05-21240 was not procedurally exhausted (see generally Doc. 85 at pp. 9-10). As demonstrated
by the record, Plaintiff timely filed this emergency grievance and timely appealed the
Warden’s decision to the ARB, which issued a decision on the merits prior to Plaintiff
bringing this action (Doc. 85-3 at pp. 14-17). See Pozo, 286 F.3d at 1025. Accordingly, as
both parties acknowledge, the key question is whether Grievance 05-21-240 adequately

Page 9 of 14

identified Dr. Williams and Plaintiff’s claim against her, such that Plaintiff exhausted his
administrative remedies as to that claim.
Section 504.810(c) provides that a “grievance shall contain factual details
regarding each aspect of the offender’s complaint, including what happened, when,
where and the name of each person who is the subject of or who is otherwise involved in
the complaint. This provision does not preclude an offender from filing a grievance when
the names of individuals are not known, but the offender must include as much
descriptive information about the individual as possible.” In interpreting this provision,
numerous cases have unambiguously held that a grievance must identify who their target
is or implicate their target in the alleged wrongdoing. See Roberts v. Neal, 745 F.3d 232,
235-36 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The grievance has a fatal defect, but it lies elsewhere; it lies in the
absence of anything in it to indicate that Davis was the target.”); Cunningham v. Isaacs,
No. 3:21-CV-247-MAB, 2022 WL 3026854, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2022) (“In short, the
grievance must provide sufficient information to identify the defendant as the target of
the complaint or to implicate them in the alleged wrongdoing.”); Walker v. Harris, No.
3:19-CV-00664-MAB, 2021 WL 3287832, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2021) (“Additionally, even
if Plaintiff had properly submitted this grievance through the appropriate institutional
channels and then to the ARB prior to filing this lawsuit, the contents of this grievance
are not specific enough to exhaust the claim against Defendant Harris.”).
Here, Dr. Williams argues Grievance 05-21-240 did not adequately identify her or
Plaintiff’s claim against her because it was grieving his call pass being cancelled and his
inability to have a follow-up appointment with P.A. Luking (Doc. 85 at pp. 9-10). In

Page 10 of 14

support of this argument, Dr. Williams quotes portions of Grievance 05-21-240 which
discuss P.A. Luking and Plaintiff’s cancelled appointments (Id.). Yet, Dr. Williams’
motion fails to acknowledge the portions of Plaintiff’s grievance that specifically
addressed her by name (see Id.). To be clear, grievance 05-21-240 unequivocally names Dr.
Williams on two occasions (see Doc. 85-3 at 16) and the Court therefore rejects Dr.
Williams’ contention that “grievance [05-21-240] does not identify Dr. Williams or any
conduct that can be imputed to her.” (Doc. 85 at p. 8).4
Accordingly, having determined that Grievance 05-21-240 identifies Dr. Williams,
the Court next considers Dr. Williams’ argument that the grievance only put prison
officials on notice that Plaintiff was grieving his appointments being cancelled, and not
that he was grieving Dr. Williams’ medical judgment (see Doc. 91 at p. 2). Dr. Williams
also emphasizes that Plaintiff’s grievance was deemed moot at each level of review
because he had a subsequent appointment with P.A. Luking on May 24, 2021,
demonstrating that prison officials believed Plaintiff’s grievance was only about his
appointments being cancelled (Id.).
The Court is not persuaded by this argument either. Grievance 05-21-240
specifically named Dr. Williams and challenged her lack of concern for Plaintiff’s
wellbeing in light of the pain he was experiencing (Doc. 85-3 at p. 16). Plaintiff was
similarly permitted to proceed in this action against Dr. Williams on a claim that she was

While Dr. Williams’ reply brief does ultimately concede that Grievance 05-21-240 identifies her by name
(see Doc. 91 at pp. 1-2), Dr. Williams failed to address or even acknowledge this point in her initial motion
(see Doc. 90 at p. 7) (“But Dr. Williams does not address in any way the portions of this grievance that
identify her or relate to the sufficiency of her care for Plaintiff’s condition.”).
4

Page 11 of 14

deliberately indifferent to his arm/hand issues and pain. When comparing the grievance
with Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Williams in this case, the Court has little trouble
concluding that grieving Dr. Williams’ “lack of concern about [Plaintiff’s] well-being”
provided sufficient notice for the claim raised against Dr. Williams in this action. See
Wilson v. Holloway, No. 19 C 8114, 2022 WL 444113, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2022) (rejecting
the defendant’s contention that a grievance’s wording must match that of the complaint).5
Likewise, the Court rejects Dr. Williams’ argument that Grievance 05-21-240 only
provided sufficient notice about Plaintiff’s cancelled appointments and P.A. Luking
because the grievance was found to be moot in light of Plaintiff’s subsequent
appointment. Significantly, “a grievance must contain enough information about who
caused the grieved of problem so that a prison can properly investigate and resolve

A recent, contrasting example is illustrative. In Jackson v. Esser, the Seventh Circuit considered whether
several grievances provided prison officials with sufficient notice of the issues raised in the plaintiff’s
complaint. 105 F.4th 948, 959 (7th Cir. 2024). Notably, one of the plaintiff’s claims was an Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim based upon the failure to provide him with an inhaler and nasal
spray. Id. In reviewing his grievances, the district court and Seventh Circuit found that the plaintiff
challenged the denial of medical attention in three grievances. Id. However, all three of those medical
grievances “dealt with a denial of medical attention for his dehydration, not for asthma or other conditions
that would require nasal spray or an inhaler.” Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit held the plaintiff did
not exhaust his administrative remedies as to that claim because “[a] claim that he was denied these items
depends on different facts than does a claim that he was denied water and thus required a distinct
grievance.” Id.; see also Bowers v. Dart, 1 F.4th 513, 518 (7th Cir. 2021) (“Finding a grievance did not
sufficiently identify the issue because “[c]ontending that Officer Rottar failed to come to his aid during the
attack is not the same as alleging that the jail employees predicted but ignored the risk.”). In stark contrast,
here, Plaintiff both grieved the inadequate medical treatment he was receiving for his medical issues,
including his hand pain, and directly identified Dr. Williams as one of the individuals who was not
concerned about his wellbeing (Doc. 85-3 at p. 16). While Plaintiff’s grievance may not have used terms
such as “medical judgment” or “deliberate indifference,” its contents make clear that Plaintiff was grieving
the treatment provided by Dr. Williams and others at Lawrence for his hand and arm pain. See Wilson v.
Holloway, No. 19 C 8114, 2022 WL 444113, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2022) (“Though the allegations in the
complaint and the grievance are not identical, they involve the same alleged wrongdoing and wrongdoer.
And it is readily apparent from the grievance that Mr. Wilson—though he may have specifically referred
to a perceived need for crutches—was contending that Dr. Holloway minimized his back injury and did
not properly treat him for it, which is the essence of the claim he asserts against her in this case.”).
5

Page 12 of 14

grievances.” Jackson v. Esser, 105 F.4th 948, 960 (7th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). This is because “federal courts lack discretion to consider a claim
that has not traveled the required administrative path.” Bowers v. Dart, 1 F.4th 513, 518
(7th Cir. 2021).
In this case, regardless of why prison officials found Plaintiff’s grievance to be
moot, the Grievance Officer’s own report demonstrates the prison officials were aware
that Plaintiff was both suffering from pain and grieving the lack of adequate treatment at
Lawrence’s Health Care Unit (see Doc. 85-3 at p. 15) (“Offender claims that the HCU at
Lawrence C.C. provide adequate treatment.”6). See, e.g., McGhee v. Torres, No. 23-CV-24PP, 2024 WL 2746701, at *5 (E.D. Wis. May 29, 2024) (Finding a grievance about not
receiving adequate pain medication and care, including not having seen a doctor, to be
sufficient to bring a claim against the doctor for not providing him with proper care for
his injuries after his fall). In other words, Grievance 05-21-240 traveled the required
administrative path and provided sufficient notice by both naming Dr. Williams and
adequately identifying Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim related to the treatment of
his hand and arm pain. Compare Saffold v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., No. 18 C 3301, 2021 WL
4477930, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2021) (finding the plaintiff provided sufficient
information to identify the defendant even when the plaintiff never directly named the
defendant because the prison could deduce who was involved based upon the grievance),

The Court believes the Grievance Officer made a minor typo in this statement by stating “provide
adequate treatment” when a cursory review of Plaintiff’s grievance demonstrates that he was complaining
of “inadequate treatment.” (See Doc. 85-3 at pp. 15-17).
6

Page 13 of 14

with Roberts, 745 F.3d at 236 (finding a failure to exhaust where the grievance only
mentioned complaints against a doctor, but the plaintiff was actually seeking to bring suit
against a nurse). In addition, Grievance 05-21-240 repeatedly requested for Plaintiff to be
seen by an outside doctor for treatment of his pain (including that in his hand),
demonstrating that Plaintiff was seeking better treatment and not simply grieving his
appointments being cancelled (see Doc. 85-3 at pp. 16-17).
For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative
remedies as it relates to his claim against Dr. Williams. Thus, Dr. Williams’ exhaustionbased summary judgment motion is DENIED (Doc. 84).
CONCLUSION
Dr. Williams’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust
Administrative Remedies is DENIED (Doc. 84; see also Doc. 85).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2024
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 14 of 14