MEMORANDUM

CATHERINE C. BLAKE, District Judge.

Pending is a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alterative Motion for Summary Judgement, filed on behalf of defendants Warden Ricky Foxwell and Stephanie Batayneh. ECF 14. Plaintiff Eric Funderburk has not responded.2 Upon review of papers and exhibits filed, the court finds an oral hearing in this matter unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons stated below, the dispositive motion will be granted.

Background

On August 5, 2014, Funderburk, who is incarcerated at the Maryland Transition Center ("MTC"), filed a self-represented complaint, alleging that on December 8, 2013, while he was detained at the Baltimore City Detention Center ("BCDC"), he was assaulted by other inmates over the use of the telephone. ECF 1, p. 3. He claims that although unknown officers took the names of the assailants and photographs of his injuries, no one was charged with assaulting him. Id. He states, "A Female Officer called `Ms. B' [subsequently identified by counsel as Batayneh] on A-Shift opened the cell doors for recreation then left the tier thereby failing to protect me from assault." Id.

Analysis

Defendants raise the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion and assert that Plaintiff's claims have not been properly presented through the administrative remedy procedure and therefore must be dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997e. ECF 14. The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act provides, in pertinent part:

42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

Funderburk is subject to the strict requirements of the exhaustion provisions, and it does not matter that he alleges injury caused by a single incident, as opposed to general conditions of confinement. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 528 (2002) (no distinction is made with respect to exhaustion requirement between suits alleging unconstitutional conditions and suits alleging unconstitutional conduct). Exhaustion is also required even though the relief sought is not attainable through resort to the administrative remedy procedure. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A claim which has not been exhausted may not be considered by this court. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 220 (2007).

Thus, plaintiff's claims must be dismissed if defendants raise the affirmative defense and also prove that plaintiff has failed to exhaust available remedies. See Jones, 549 U.S. at 216-17 (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense and inmates are not required to demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints). The PLRA's exhaustion requirement is designed so that prisoners pursue administrative grievances until they receive a final denial of the claims, appealing through all available stages in the administrative process. Chase v. Peay, 286 F.Supp.2d 523, 530 (D. Md. 2003); Booth, 532 U.S. at 735 (affirming dismissal of prisoner's claim for failure to exhaust where he "never sought intermediate or full administrative review after prison authority denied relief").

BCDC has established a four-step grievance process. ECF 14-2. In his unverified complaint, Funderburk states, "To my knowledge there is not a[n] ARP process at Baltimore City Detention Center." ECF 1, p. 2. His statement is belied by the record. While confined at BCDC, Funderburk filed numerous grievances both before and after the incident. ECF 14-4. None of these grievances concerned the December 8, 2013 attack. As Funderburk failed to institute, much less exhaust, remedies as to the allegations contained in this complaint, the complaint shall be dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, defendants' dispositive motion shall be granted. A separate Order shall be entered in accordance with this Memorandum.