that she parsed it out whether it was genuine or material i don't believe that that's in her opinion what she did was she made a credibility determination at the second summary judgment on the basis of the papers yes your honor she acknowledged that there is a factual dispute about whether mr palatino submitted particular grievances for example and his just deposition testimony which he cited in opposition your honor i'm well look at the bryant case when opposing counsel speaking but i believe that there were factual differences in front of the eleventh circuit i don't think that that inmate had put forth the proof that mr not completely confident although that was in the record i'm not completely confident that it was credited in the way that it should have been secondly in terms of the evidence that was submitted by the defendants what the defendant  of responding to mr palatino screams and says and so if they came into court with a record keeper and mr paladino came into court with his story that he had given multiple grievances to a particular social worker and that those grievances were not produced by the defendants during the course of discovery the district court could find that the defendants haven't proven exhaustion and so that is one way one route in which it could have been even from the regional complaint that the district court pay attention to the exhaustion issue he in his original complaint said i have filed many grievances and never gotten a response it's not as if mr powell you know is hiding the ball  that if there's a genuine issue of material fact there will be a hearing the defendants can plan accordingly and know that if the plaintiff has presented record evidence that they're not going to spend the resources to draft a motion dismiss that tries to convince the court that there's no genuine issue a material fact rather they could just say we're ready to go to a hearing and the district court has significant discretion in terms of how the hearing is conducted i mean  ok thank you because the record demonstrates that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by the prison litigation reform act furthermore the district court correctly resolve the factual dispute regarding exhaustion of which contradicted those statements again both in this complaint which you relied upon in opposing summary judgment and in his deposition testimony he laid out his claims excessive for recreation number claims and he said i filed a remedy forms and never got a response well if you look at the remedy forms that were submitted in support of the summer judge for motion he in fact submitted remy forms related to many of those claims and he got a response and judge judge thompson relied upon that i believe and made inferences based on that record in deciding the summary judgment much with  and she also i think correctly noted that there was no indication that the prison didn't return a remedy forms the plaintiff the sizes own self serving statement you know this you that this this was a material issue that a material issue it is an internal issue but i think but i've been looking at the evidence presented in the case again the evidence and i'm the court was i think permitted to make inferences the evidence showed that in fact he did romney forms even though he and he did get a response i mean this and this directly contradicts his statements that he never got never got a response was romney forms that with vigor well he didn't say all i think i  there was the issue of summary judgment was renner exhaustion because he failed to appeal the initial decision and then he moved with respect to recreation he says i never got anything back i couldn't do anything more well but again put with five rmy forms that he submitted and never got a response and i think and in that case the court did hold eight evidence or hearing which i think was appropriate based on knowing the swans but then and at deposition he went through says and he gave specific testimony about what we should one said you know again sions the persons involved so again based on that deposition testimony and the forms that he came forward with to show you know that he submitted never got a response i think that's it you know there was a question i think that needed to be resolved but evidentiary hearing you big big in this case i mean he's in it it's coming down to credibility i don't know if there's anything in the record on your side that says we have a very reliable system we checked it it doesn't it doesn't jive with the second well i mean we did we we produced the you know the the romney forms were submitted with surfing patient saying here's where the how and how it operates and that based on that process here all the forms he submitted and he didn't is there anything in the record that's going to allow this record to conclude they've got a very reliable system here in terms of record keeping there's nothing  made of all the remedy forms and that's certainly available to all inmates are fluent in administrative segregation well through yeah but they can't go to library but they do have access to paralegals and the social workers i believe who can make copies of whatever documents they remeron or where are you know where he produced these rummy forms that never got a response so interim error the evidence the that was before the court with sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing they hear you saying the evidence was insufficient not an issue of credibility you say no no you didn't he says you said it well again but i mean not not mine i think i think it's a it's if it's an issue of credibility it can be resolved based on the record in this case that's  but i think it's before you get there he's got a piece kind of produce simply saying i mean in general sense yes i did that's not enough to get past the evidence and the inference is that can be drawn from the evidence that was submitted by defendants here i i would point out too that even even if one of the cases relied upon by the district court was brown versus shannon it's unpublished third circuit case there they are the district court result a factual dispute pertaining to exhaustion with an empty evidentiary hearing and in that case inmate unlike here actually produced some grievance forms that he claimed he submitted which he received no response so in that case i think there was even more evidence submitted by the  in fact available because in order to exhaust remedy second if the supreme court in the rush vs my case held that the the remedies have to be available so then i guess the hearing will resolve whether or not these remedies were available conclude that enough picking evidence exists to raise a genuine issue of material path of material facts about whether administrative remedies were available to priest or at georgia state prison i   because the record showed while he claimed he was denied a grievance form to complain about excessive use of force he'd actually filed a grievance form on other matter and that undermined his credibility because just that it was the night courts in circuit court should not be imposing any of procedural hurdles or deviating from the federal rules based on their requirements in the p r a and so to allow a clear air review when there's a credibility termination issue would be a deviation and so therefore it should be a two novo review and there should be acting pro bono and we think them for that they didn't excellent excellent job and if a tickler miss wouldn't we we did a great job we hope to see you frequently in the future so thank you i did counsel reasonable we'd like to