The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are the defendants, Roger Walker Jr, Melody Ford, Jackie Miller and Mary Miller's motion for summary judgment  and the plaintiff's response  respectively. The plaintiff Dominick Giampaolo, pro se, has submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Joseph Loftus, et al. Plaintiff alleges 1) defendants' deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs; 2) an unconstitutional 21/2 cell time policy, 3) a lack of cleaning supplies; and 4) inadequate clothing. Plaintiff alleges defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The defendants, Roger Walker Jr, Melody Ford, Jackie Miller and Mary Miller's , by their attorney Ryan Nelson, have moved the court for an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him before filing this lawsuit.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and admissions, along with affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.P. 56(c). An issue of material fact exists only if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In determining whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, the court must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Bartman v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 799 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir.1986). Yet not every conceivable inference must be drawn, only reasonable inferences. Id. at 312-13 (7th Cir.1986).
The party moving for summary judgment carries the initial burden of production to identify "those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party may discharge this burden by "showing . . . an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id., 477 U.S. at 325. When the moving party has met the burden, the nonmoving party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250. In determining whether the non-movant has identified a "material" issue of fact for trial, "[o]nly dispute[s] that could affect the outcome of the suit under governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." McGinn v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 102 F.3d 295, 298 (7th Cir. 1996). A court must enter summary judgment against the plaintiff when the plaintiff fails to come forward with evidence that would reasonably permit a finder of fact to find in plaintiff's favor on a material question. Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994).
The complaint brought before the court is in regards to the Defendants' alleged deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs and inhumane conditions of confinement in violations of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights, that were complained about in the grievances but not corrected. Plaintiff Dominick Giampaolo, an inmate at Danville Correctional Center alleges that he has several missing dental fillings, chronic arthritic pain in his left knee, varicose veins, and back pain. He further alleges that he was denied a lower bunk permit, knee brace and support hose. The plaintiff claims that Roger Walker, Melody Ford, Wexford Health Services, Inc., Dr. Ameji, Dr. LNU (John Doe) and Mary Miller were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff further alleges that Roger Walker, Melody Ford and John Does 1-3 subjected him to inhuman conditions of confinement. Specifically he alleges an unconstitutional 21/3 cell time policy, 2) a lack of cleaning supplies; and 3) inadequate clothing.
1. On September 22, 2008, Plaintiff filed his complaint. 
2. The court conducted a merit review of Plaintiff's complaint on October 20, 2008, and held that the Plaintiff could proceed on his claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 
3. The soy related portion of Plaintiff's indifference claim was later consolidated with case number 07-3225. See text ...