The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCuskey Central District of Illinois
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are the defendants' summary judgment motions  and , the plaintiff's responses,  and , respectively and defendants' reply  and .
Plaintiff is an inmate who is incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections. On March 4, 2008, while incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff claims that the defendants, Mary Miller, Dr. Bashi Ameji and Wexford Health Services were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by allegedly denying him medical treatment for a stroke. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the deliberate indifference took place during the period April 6, 2007 through April 9, 2007. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Defendants contend that summary judgment is warranted as the Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. A motion for summary judgment was previously filed; however, due to a question of fact, the court granted an opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue of exhaustion. In accordance with Pavey v. Conley, WL2277494 (7th Cir. 2008), the question of fact with regard to the issue of exhaustion should be resolved pursuant to the Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment. The testimony heard during the April 29, 2009 Pavey hearing reflects the facts contained in this order.
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. Plaintiff, Daniel Escobedo, is an inmate incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections.
2. The incidents that gave rise to the instant action occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center. Plaintiff began feeling symptoms of his "stroke*fn1 " on April 6, 2007 which continued through April 17, 2007, when he spoke with Dr. Ameji and his requests for treatment were denied. (Affidavit of Daniel Escobedo, Exhibit A, ¶ 1 .
3. In his first amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was denied medical treatment for a stroke during the period April 6, 2007 through April 9, 2007. (Docket #12, pp. 2-3 and 10-14).
4. In a grievance dated June 12, 2007, Plaintiff grieved a denial of medical treatment by Dr. Ameji on April 12, 2007. (Exhibit Q attached to Docket#12). The plaintiff claims that the date, April 12, 2007, listed on his grievance as the date of his "stroke" was simply a mistake. (Affidavit of Daniel Escobedo, Exhibit A ¶ 2, attached t docket 57.)
5. Plaintiff's grievance was denied by the institution. (Exhibit U attached to Docket #12). The grievance officer, after conferring with Mary Miller, determined that the proper policies and procedures were followed. (See grievance attached to amended complaint at docket #12.) The chief administrative officer concurred with the grievance officer's response. In the grievance, the grievance officer noted that the dates the plaintiff had been to the Health Care Unit were actually on April 6 and April 7, 2007, rather than April 12, 2007. (Id.)
6. The plaintiff appealed the grievance to the Administrative Review Board (hereinafter ARB). In his August 1, 2007 letter to the ARB, he specifically denied that he was ever provided proper medical attention. (Id.)
6. Plaintiff's appeal to the ARB was denied because ARB determined that the plaintiff's grievance was not filed within the time frame provided for in Departmental Rule 504. (Exhibit O attached to Docket #12).
7. Plaintiff admits that his grievance was not timely filed*fn2 . (Complaint, pp. 6-7, docket #12.)
8. The defendants claim the plaintiff did not file a grievance in accordance with Departmental Rule 504, regarding the alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, namely a stroke, by Defendant Mary Miller on April 6, 2007, or April 7, 2007, while at Danville Correctional Center. (Defendant's Exhibit A, Affidavit of Melody Ford, ¶7).
9. Although plaintiff affies that during the relevant period [of his complaint], he was unaware of how to file a grievance (Affidavit of Daniel Escobedo, Exhibit A ¶ 4 attached to Docket # 56 ), the defendants have provided proof that the plaintiff filed a grievance and processed the grievance through the entire grievance review process in 1989. (Exhibit A, Affidavit of Sarah Johnson attached to docket # 58.) Further, the plaintiff received the orientation manual which included a description of the grievance process upon his arrival at Danville Correctional Center. (See document 1 attached to Exhibit B, Affidavit of Becky Williams, which is attached to docket ...