an exception to the PLRA large enough to swallow the general rule. Based on the Third Circuit’s holding that permitting such an exception would undermine Congressional purpose, I refuse to adopt such an exception today. Gallman v. Horn, Civil Action 99-138J (W.D.Pa. Oct. 31, 2000) (Mem.Ord. pp. 3-4). Here, it is Plaintiffs burden to come forward with evidence to defeat Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. His bald statements do not suffice. Thus, in the absence of any controlling authority to the contrary, this Court is required to follow the directive of the United States Supreme Court and grant the Motion for Summary Judgment due to the Plaintiffs failure to have exhausted his available administrative remedies. Accord Scerbo v. Orefice 2006 WL 3762000, *8 (M.D.Pa. Dec. 20, 2006) (<HOLDING>). 2. No Demonstrable Eighth Amendment
holding that an argument not raised before the district court is procedurally defaulted holding that court may address procedurally defaulted claim on the merits where it is more efficient to do so holding that claim set forth in plaintiffs grievance filed over nine months after the alleged incident was procedurally defaulted holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted holding that we cannot avoid ruling on a claim a petitioner has procedurally defaulted if the government has waived the procedural default defense for that claim