the record shows DeBrew conferred with a Correctional Counselor at Butner on at least two occasions. On the first occasion, he gave De-Brew a letter explaining it took 16 days for DeBrew to receive the General Counsel’s letter rejecting his first appeal. On the second occasion, DeBrew asked a Correctional Counselor to retrieve a copy of the Regional Director’s response from the Administrative Remedy Index, which she failed to do. The defendants suggest no other way in which DeBrew could have complied with the General Counsel’s requirement that he attach the Regional Director’s response in order to perfect his appeal. Under these circumstances, the remedy of an appeal to the General Counsel simply was not “available” to DeBrew. See Risher v. Lappin, 639 F.3d 236, 240 (6th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 656 (7th
holding that because plaintiff no longer has available administrative remedies his action must be dismissed with prejudice holding the plaintiff exhausted all available administrative remedies because the bureaus failure to deliver the regional directors response to the plaintiff  prevented him from sub mitting that response with his appeal to the general counsel holding that a plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies when his claim is deemed denied because of failure of administrator to respond in a timely manner holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court holding remedy not available to prisoner where officials purportedly prevented plaintiff from employing the prisons administrative remedies