The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at the Stateville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 590 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, some factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, No. 08-4286, 2009 WL 2535731, at *5 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2009). Additionally, Courts "should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements." Id. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, No. 06-4260, 2009 WL 2498580, at *2 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2009).
Plaintiff alleges that on August 14, 2007, he had a verbal confrontation with Defendant Holder concerning whether Plaintiff could have an extra milk with his breakfast. During this confrontation, Holder called Plaintiff, who is a Latino, a racially derogatory name. Later that day, Plaintiff states that he was assaulted and beaten up by Defendants Eovaldi, Monroe, John Doe1 and John Does (tactical unit members) as a result of the verbal confrontation he had with Defendant Holder. Plaintiff further contends that he was denied medical care after the attack by Defendants John Doe 2 and John Doe 3.
Plaintiff alleges that he was issued a "false" disciplinary report charging him with assaulting staff, intimidation/threats, insolence, and disobeying a direct order. Plaintiff claims that the purpose for these "false" charges was to cover-up the attack by the prison staff. Plaintiff's disciplinary report was heard by an Adjustment Committee comprised of Defendants Mitchell and Lee. Plaintiff was found guilty of the violations and received the following sanctions: (1) 6 months C grade; (2) 6 months segregation; (3) 6 months restrictions on contact visits; (4) 6 months commissary restrictions.
Plaintiff contends that he filed grievances with Defendants Ford and Walker, but they failed to take corrective action or punish the other Defendants in any manner.