PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
Gregory B. Wormuth, United States District Judge
This matter comes before me on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 12. I find that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and therefore recommend granting Defendant’s motion and dismissing the case with prejudice.
Plaintiff Moses Sparks is an inmate at the Lea County Correctional Facility (LCCF) proceeding pro se in this action. When Plaintiff arrived at LCCF on May 23, 2012, he was placed in the orientation pod. Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 12 at 3. Plaintiff was interviewed by Defendant Security Warden Beaird to determine where he would be housed. Id. During the interview, Plaintiff, who is black, claims that he told Defendant that he did not want to be placed in housing unit 1E because he thought it would be unsafe, given his race. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff was ultimately placed in unit 1E. Doc. 12 at 3.
On June 23, 2012, another black inmate in unit 1E named Jackson got into a fight with a Hispanic inmate, Adrian Camacho. Doc. 1 at 4 & Ex. 2. When it appeared that Camacho was losing the fight, seven other Hispanic inmates began attacking Jackson with shanks. Id. at 5 & Ex. 2. Plaintiff and two other black inmates then joined the altercation in order to assist Jackson. Id. Jackson suffered from 15-17 puncture wounds and a punctured right lung. Id. Another black inmate, Terry Wilson, had one puncture wound and a punctured large intestine. Id. Plaintiff suffered a wound to his back. Id.
Jackson, Wilson, and Camacho were sent offsite for medical treatment. Id., ex. 2. Plaintiff alleges that he was locked in a cell for two hours before correctional officers came to take photos of his injuries. Id. at 5. He claims to have waited an additional 90 minutes after the photos were taken before receiving medical treatment. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the nurse who treated him was unable to close the wound because of the delay. Id.
On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging three causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Eighth Amendment. Doc. 1. He brought claims against (1) the Geo Group, Inc., the corporation that runs LCCF, for failure to train its staff; (2) Defendant Beaird for placing Plaintiff in unit 1E knowing that he would likely be attacked by Hispanic inmates; and (3) Warden J. Janecka for failing to adequately train LCCF staff. Id. at 7-8. The Court dismissed the claims against the Geo Group, Inc. and Warden Janecka for failure to state a claim. Doc. 8 at 3. It also dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Beaird in his official capacity, leaving only Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Beaird in his individual capacity. Id. at 2-3.
On April 3, 2013, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Doc. 12. As of this writing, Plaintiff has not filed a response to that motion.
II. Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), this Court must ʺgrant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The movant bears the initial burden of “show[ing] that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Once the movant meets this burden, Rule 56(c) requires the non-moving party to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986); Vitkus v. Beatrice Co., 11 F.3d 1535, 1539 (10th Cir. 1993).
“An issue is ‘genuine’ if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way. An issue of fact is ‘material’ if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.” Thom v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., 353 F.3d 848, 851 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A).
When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court should keep in mind three principles. First, the court’s role is not to weigh the evidence, but to assess the threshold issue of whether a genuine issue exists as to material facts requiring a trial. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249. Second, the court must resolve all reasonable inferences and doubts in favor of the non-moving party, and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 550–55 (1999). Third, the court cannot decide any issues of credibility. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255. “[T]o survive the . . . motion, [the nonmovant] need only present evidence from which a jury might return a verdict in his favor.” Id. at 257.
III. Defendant’s Facts Are Deemed Admitted
Plaintiff has filed neither a response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment nor a request for an extension of time to file a response. He also has not filed a notice of change of address and none of the documents sent to him by the Court have been returned. Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, “[a]ll material facts set forth in the [motion for summary judgment] will be deemed undisputed unless specifically controverted.” D.N.M.L.R.-Civ. 56.1(b). Because Plaintiff has not filed a response disputing the facts set forth in Defendant’s motion, I treat those facts as admitted.See Davis v. Simon Property Group, 9 F. App’x 876, 880-81 ...