named in complaint); Grady v. Cross, 76 Fed.Appx. 760, 761 (8th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal because plaintiff “did not file and exhaust a grievance against ... a named defendant” before filing complaint); Love v. May, 63 Fed.Appx. 282, 283 (8th Cir.2003) (per cu-riam) (affirming dismissal because plaintiff did not file grievances against three defendants named in complaint). These unpublished opinions, though not precedential, have persuasive value, and we are persuaded to hold that a prisoner who files a complaint in federal court asserting multiple claims against multiple prison officials based on multiple prison grievances must have exhausted each claim against each defendant in at least one of the grievances. See Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 505 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Dismissal of the complaint on this ground in
holding that inmate plaintiff satisfied  1997ea where he attempted to exhaust all available administrative remedies but was prevented from doing so by prison personnel holding that  1997ea requires an inmate to identify in his grievance each individual he intends to sue holding that a plaintiff is required to identify specific acts of individual defendants  for his claim to survive holding that 42 usc  1997ea requires prisoners to exhaust a process and not a remedy holding that  1997ea requires proper exhaustion