548 U.S. 81, 83, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). A prisoner must exhaust these remedies “in the literal sense[;]” no further avenues in the prison’s grievance process should be available. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 232 (3d Cir.2004). “[I]t is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that defines the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). In New Jersey, the Inmate Remedy System requires the submission of a “Routine Inmate Request” and, if necessary, an “Administrative Appeal.” See N.J. Admin. Code § 10A:1-4.4. In- their brief in support of the motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that Smith failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287, 295 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The defendants indicated that a search of NSP
holding state is required to raise procedural bar as affirmative defense or it is waived holding that fair use is an affirmative defense recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding that exhaustion requirement in bj997ea is an affirmative defense that may be waived or forfeited holding that plras exhaustion requirement is an affirmative defense that can be waived or forfeited by defendants