REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REONA J. DALY, Magistrate Judge.

The matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly by United States District Judge J. Phil Gilbert pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on the question of whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion for Summary Judgment on Exhaustion (Doc. 33) filed by Defendant Ralph Johnnie be DENIED, and that the Court adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff Ricky Bell, an inmate incarcerated at Lincoln Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Centralia Correctional Center ("Centralia") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants were deliberately indifferent to his dental care. Following threshold review, Plaintiff proceeds on the following claims:

Plaintiff asserts he exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a grievance on July 27, 2017.

Bell's grievance can be summarized as follows:

The Counselor received Bell's grievance on August 3, 2017 and responded that he checked with healthcare and they received his request slip on June 20, 2017 for dental and that he was seen on June 26, 2017. There was no record of a dental emergency being declared. The Grievance Officer's Report was issued on August 16, 2017 stating that the grievance had been reviewed and that offender's concerns were being addressed by the facility's health care staff and it was recommended the grievance be denied. The CAO concurred with the report on August 18, 2017. The ARB received the appeal of the grievance and issued a denial on September 9, 2017 because it found the issue was appropriately addressed by the facility Administration.

After a careful review of the arguments and evidence set forth in the parties' briefs regarding the issue of exhaustion, the Court determined that an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) is not necessary.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party can demonstrate "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986); see also Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the lack of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party "must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In determining a summary judgment motion, the district Court views the facts in the light most favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party. Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), prisoners are required to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing lawsuits in federal court. "[A] prisoner who does not properly take each step within the administrative process has failed to exhaust state remedies." Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002). "[A] suit filed by a prisoner before administrative remedies have been exhausted must be dismissed; the district court lacks discretion to resolve the claim on the merits, even if the prisoner exhausts intra-prison remedies before judgment." Perez v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 1999). "[A]ll dismissals under § 1997e(a) should be without prejudice." Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 401 (7th Cir. 2004).

An inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections must first submit a written grievance within 60 days after the discovery of the incident, occurrence or problem, to his or her institutional counselor, unless certain discrete issues are being grieved. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(a). If the complaint is not resolved through a counselor, the grievance is considered by a Grievance Officer who must render a written recommendation to the Chief Administrative Officer — usually the Warden — within two months of receipt, "when reasonably feasible under the circumstances." Id. §504.830(e). The CAO then advises the inmate of a decision on the grievance. Id.

An inmate may appeal the decision of the Chief Administrative Officer in writing within 30 days to the Administrative Review Board for a final decision. Id. § 504.850(a); see also Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 806-07 (7th Cir. 2006). The ARB will submit a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Director who shall review the same and make a final determination within 6 months of receipt of the appeal. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.850(d) and (e).

An inmate may request that a grievance be handled as an emergency by forwarding it directly to the Chief Administrative Officer. Id. § 504.840. If it is determined that there exists a substantial risk of imminent personal injury or other serious or irreparable harm, the grievance is handled on an emergency basis, which allows for expedited processing of the grievance by responding directly to the offender. Id. Inmates may further submit certain types of grievances directly to the Administrative Review Board, including grievances related to protective custody, psychotropic medication, and certain issues relating to facilities other than the inmate's currently assigned facility. Id. at § 504.870.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Defendant Johnnie argues the July 17, 2017 grievance did not exhaust Plaintiff's administrative remedies as to him because the grievance did not apprise the prison of the issues Bell had with Johnnie. Johnnie was the dentist who treated Bell's tooth and asserts that the grievance states he and his staff were professional.

Plaintiff argues he was not grieving the treatment provided; rather he was grieving the delay in treatment. At the time the grievance was filed, he did not know who was in charge of dental services so he stated the grievance was regarding the lack of emergency dental procedures and was against the "medical director" and/or Wexford's policies. Bell later learned that Johnnie, in addition to being the dentist, was the director over the dental department. He argues his grievance was sufficient to put the prison on notice of his issues with Johnnie since he was the person in charge of dental services.

Under Illinois regulations, a grievance must 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." The Code goes on to state, however, that "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." ILL. ADMIN. CODE TIT. 20, § 504.810(b). The Supreme Court has held that exhaustion is not inadequate under the PLRA merely because "an individual later sued was not named in the grievances." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219 (2007). The Court emphasized that the PLRA does not impose a specific requirement regarding who must be named in a grievance for proper exhaustion. The Court opined that notice to an individual that he might be sued "has not been thought to be one of the leading purposes of the exhaustion requirement," and cited the Fifth Circuit's statement that "the primary purpose of a grievance is to alert prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may be sued." Id. (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522 (5th Cir. 2004)). The Seventh Circuit has cautioned district courts to avoid placing too much emphasis on the first sentence of the regulation because "the identification requirement in the first sentence is softened by the second sentence, which clarifies that prisoners need identify names only to the extent practicable." Glick v. Walker, 385 F.App'x 579, 582 (7th Cir. 2010).

The Court finds that Plaintiff's grievance was sufficiently descriptive to comply with the Illinois regulations. Plaintiff stated he was grieving the delay in dental treatment and identified the medical director of dental services as the person responsible. Plaintiff's grievance was specific enough to "alert prison officials to a problem" and to identify that the problem had to do with the provision of dental treatment. Further, exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense in an action against prison officials, and the burden of proof is on the officials. Here, the Court finds Defendant has not met his burden.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion for Summary Judgment on Exhaustion filed by Defendant Johnnie (Doc. 33) be DENIED and that the Court adopt the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objection thereto. The failure to file a timely objection may result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Report and Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2004).

NOTICE

PURSUANT to Title 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 73.1(b) of the Local Rules of Practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen days of service.

Please note: You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. At this point, it is appropriate to file OBJECTIONS, if any, to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).