The opinion of the court was delivered by: David G. Larimer United States District Judge
Plaintiff, Darryl Gilliam, appearing pro se, commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, who at the time this action was commenced was an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") alleges that defendants, who at all relevant times were employed by DOCS, have violated his rights under the United States Constitution.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
I. Plaintiff's Failure to Respond to the Summary Judgment Motion
Although the docket sheet in this case reflects that on April 3, 2008, the Clerk's Office received a telephone call from plaintiff updating his address to a street address in Yonkers, New York, it does not appear that plaintiff has communicated with the Court since then.*fn1 As stated, he has not submitted any response to defendants' motion, which was filed on April 15, 2008.
Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
[w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denial of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response by affidavits or *339 as otherwise provided in this rule must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that when a party moves for summary judgment against a pro se litigant, either the movant or the district court must provide the pro se litigant with notice of the consequences of failing to respond to the motion. Vital v. Interfaith Med. Ctr., 168 F.3d 615, 620 (2d Cir.1999); see also Irby v. New York City Transit Auth., 262 F.3d 412, 413 (2d Cir. 2001).
In the instant case, defendants' notice of motion (Dkt. #29) and the Court's scheduling order (Dkt. #33) both gave plaintiff notice of the requirements of Rule 56 and the consequences of failing to respond properly to a motion of summary judgment. There is no question that plaintiff has been adequately advised of the pendency of the motion, of the need for him to respond and the form in which he should do so, and of the consequences of not responding to defendants' arguments and factual allegations.*fn2 Since plaintiff has not done so, the Court may accept the truth of defendants' factual allegations, and determine whether defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
A. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Defendants contend that the complaint should be dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The PLRA provides in part that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." Id.
There are three stages to the DOCS grievance process. "First, a grievance is filed with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee ('IGRC'). Next, an inmate may appeal an adverse decision to the prison superintendent. Finally, an inmate may appeal the superintendent's decision to the Central Office ...