The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants' April 29, 2008, motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. After carefully reviewing the record, the court recommends that defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part.
This action is proceeding on the original complaint filed November 5, 2007, as to defendants Felker, Clark, Pfadt, Gulion, Noyes, Tilford and Noragourd. The motion to dismiss is made on behalf of all defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that on February 16, 2007, he received in his tray slot via institutional mail a copy of his legal status summary sheet. On February 24, 2007, plaintiff asked defendant Tilford not to send anything regarding his case to his cell. Defendant Tilford said, "I don't know what you're talking about."
On February 24, 2007, plaintiff filed a grievance against defendant Tilford for sending the report to his cell. On March 5, 2007, plaintiff sent a certified letter to the Warden asking him to stop defendants from sending the legal status summary sheet to his cell. Plaintiff received no response.
On March 20, 2007, plaintiff talked to defendant Tilford's replacement, Counselor Luther, who admitted that the legal status summary sheet had been sent to plaintiff's cell. Luther told plaintiff that it would not happen again.
On April 20, 2007, plaintiff spoke to defendant Noragourd and Luther about the grievance he had filed against defendant Tilford on February 24, 2007. Defendant Noragourd and Luther told plaintiff that nothing would be mailed to his cell again.
On April 28, 2007, plaintiff received the grievance he had filed against defendant Tilford. Defendant Noragourd had denied the grievance. Plaintiff then submitted the grievance to the Warden's office.
On June 26, 2007, plaintiff was sent to administrative segregation for possession of a weapon.
On July 5, 2007, plaintiff appeared before a classification committee. Plaintiff told the committee that he needed the weapon because of the legal status summary sheet having been sent to his cell. The committee assured plaintiff that it would not happen again.
On July 5, 2007, plaintiff's appeal was denied by the assistant warden. On July 5, 2007, plaintiff mailed the appeal to the Director's Office. Plaintiff did not receive a response from the Director's Level of Review.
On September 17, 2007, plaintiff received via institutional mail two copies of his legal status summary sheet. On September 17, 2007, plaintiff filed a grievance against defendant Clark for mailing these grievances to his cell. On September ...