a nurse practitioner and a doctor and that both had determined that his vitiligo did not require medical treatment. -Plaintiff was not happy with this response, and he commenced the present lawsuit on August 25, 2010. II. DISCUSSION Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendants concede that plaintiff filed an inmate complaint about the subject matter of this lawsuit and that he appealed the rejection of the complaint to the right reviewing authority; however, they contend that plaintiff did not “properly” exhaust his administrative remedies because his initial complaint was untimely. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (<HOLDING>). As noted, under ICRS rules, an inmate
holding that proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary under section 1997ea holding that proper exhaustion under 42 usc  1997ea is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules holding that proper exhaustion under  1997ea is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules holding that  1997ea requires proper exhaustion holding that exhaustion under  1997ea must occur prior to commencement of the action