In this regard, because TDCJ procedure clearly prohibits inmates from requesting punitive damages, Rosa properly exhausted despite the fact he did not request punitive damages in his step-one grievance. Further, the purpose of the exhaustion requirement, namely giving TDCJ notice and an opportunity to resolve internal problems, was undeniably satisfied. As noted, as a result of the investigation, one Defendant was criminally prosecuted for his actions at TDCJ and is no longer employed there; another Defendant was disciplined; and the third Defendant’s employment at TDCJ was terminated. Finally, this court’s unpublished, non-precedential decisions relied upon by Defendants, although instructive, are distinguishable. See, e.g., Aguirre v. Dyer, 233 Fed.Appx. 365 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Palermo v. Miller, 196 Fed.Appx. 234 (5th
holding that an inmate failed to exhaust where he failed to file a steptwo grievance because his step one was referred to the internal affairs division holding that  1997ea requires an inmate to identify in his grievance each individual he intends to sue holding that trial court properly granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff had failed to exhaust remedies available through exclusive grievance procedure holding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not utilize grievance procedures that permitted waiver of the time limit for good cause holding that a pro se plaintiff who was unfamiliar with the process and failed to file a grievance form but wrote numerous letters and memoranda to various prison officials had made a reasonable attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies