applied to all types of claims arising out of the prison context, no matter the nature of the claim or the type of relief sought. In Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006), the Court stated that exhaustion was mandatory for all eases and could not be excused in the discretion of the district court. The Court held that, in order to comply with the exhaustion requirement, grievances must be properly and timely filed, appealed to the highest level, and in full compliance with all procedural requirements. Id. Thus, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of uniform application of the PLRA and strict compliance with its exhaustion requirement. Plaintiff heavily relies upon the Third Circuit case of Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court cases cited and reviewed
holding that a courts authority to require exhaustion of administrative remedies in actions brought under the apa is limited when neither the statute nor agency rules specifically mandate exhaustion as a prerequisite to judicial review holding that requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is appropriate where doing so can protect administrative agency authority and promote judicial efficiency holding that exhaustion established when inmates allegations were fully examined on the merits by the ultimate administrative authority holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile holding that exhaustion is required even where the relief sought is not available in the administrative process