by an untimely filing of a grievance if it is accepted and decided on the merits by the appropriate prison authority.” Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 125 (2d Cir.2011); see also Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279, 281 (3d Cir.2000). Here, however, contrary to Dr. Martinez’s assertion, Spada’s 2013 grievance was neither accepted nor decided on the merits. Cf. Camp, 219 F.3d at 281; see also Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir.2004) (“[W in circumstances a prisoner is required to attempt exhaustion of a grievance even when that attempt would be untimely. See Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1378-79 (11th Cir.2008). However, in those cases a prisoner is generally required to submit a grievance that would otherwise be untimely only if the time limits may be waived. See, e.g., id. (<HOLDING>). In Pennsylvania, however, the grievance
holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea holding that the prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies as to each defendant later sued holding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not utilize grievance procedures that permitted waiver of the time limit for good cause holding that a prisoner exhausted his administrative remedies even though his grievance was untimely holding remedies not available to prisoner where officials failed to respond to his grievance during time period required by regulations