substandard health care about one month later in august of two thousand and fourteen he filed an inmate complaint about being retaliated against we argue that he august two thousand and fourteen inmate complaining about the reason why an inmate has to exhaust administrator remedies is to put the institution on notice of potential problems and may ultimately leads a loss and it gives the institution an opportunity to resolve issues in ter norman's august th two thousand and fourteen complaint did that by setting out three key facts one that his wounds were not rest time to that nurse tony johnson was an employee of the institution i was the person who failed to change a surgical dressing and three that these actions were done as an act of retaliation the inmate complaint examiner a man named brandon in brandon engine for a review of those  norman's wound care complaints are built into his complaints of retaliation the complain examiner reviewed those facts and was consequently on notice them nd in may complaints don't have to  legal theories and they should be interpreted liberally in the trial court judge peters in the western western michigan wisconsin state and even under maddox vs love which was decided by this order in two thousand and eleven that quote it is wisconsin regulations says that the in that it has to quote provide a specific degree of actual budget larry in the grievance and go further the inmate making the grievance doesn't have to lay facts or change a legal retaliation complain examiner review the evidence or retaliation evidence including the allegations then in other words your honour's substance of retaliation counts mr norman did thirteen he had surgery in early may of two thousand and thirteen so that was roughly four and a half to five months between like the injury and the surgery and then in the days after the surgery examiner uses that discretion and does not dismiss a complaint on procedural grounds agreements has sufficient to put the examiner on notice and the institution cannot rely on the failure to exhaust  the complaint examiner investigated mr northerns august two thousand and fourteen grievance which is about retaliation but the grievance including claims and acts of it and care but reviewing those claims put the examiner on notice they can is that you know what this whole think is time barred but didn't do that instead reviewed the evidence that was presented in the grievance and concluded that there was no evidence of retaliation that brief and he did not reply in his reply reply to that argument so he has waived all brains as those defendants and i'm turning to the st point this court needs to focus on one document to resolve this case and that is the that mr northern would like to pursue but the grievance was untimely and it was it was dismissed as untimely by the complaint examiner he is trying to do an end run around that denial untimely complaint by filing an august th grievance about a different topic retaliation for not signing a form and he is trying to use that august two thousand and fourteen inmate grievance to serve as a substitute for the july grievance that was dismissed as untimely it would not make sense to interpret the august prevent which is about retaliation for not signing a form as somehow reviving events that occurred fifteen months prior that would not make any sense we also believe that there is no basis for a pavey hearing here because as i said the august grievance is the key document that this court needs to focus on it's really the only document this court needs to focus on in terms of resolving this claim and there are no facts in dispute so there's nothing to reman over no we're we're focused on the august two thousand and fourteen grievance and the language in that grievance mr northern are very clearly in that grievance as he was required to do under d o c s rules identified on the  page in that at the top of that page in bold writing the word issue he risks his one issue in that grievance as being about retaliation for failing to sign these refusal of treatment form and then he goes on to catalogue over time i think the instances that we believe led to that retaliation he concludes by talking about an august twenty four team incident that he believes is retaliate that is why the august twenty grievance cannot exhaust the remedies again there are two main you have the august th grievance that's the court's focus the court also has to be aware in the back of its head that there was a july of twenty entry thirty six dollars dash nine page three it's also in the appendix at page two that sentence is the entire linchpin for mr northerns argument he doesn't point out any our position is that what he did allege against nurse johnson was not sufficient because it was focused on retaliation for failing to sign the refusal of treatments law it was not focused on complaining about her failing t change as it's dressings so i'd be happy to answer any of the court's questions that is those are the main points i wanted to make today and we would ask that this court would affirm a district could have said i dismiss all this is untimely and that would have been you had the rights and do that but he didn't do that instead reviewed the evidence including the sentences that i just quoted to make his decision about whether or not retaliati had occurred on the basis of that decision was the facts of