The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Menard 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, in pertinent part:
(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). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that the claims in the complaint may be dismissed at this point in the litigation.
The following version of the facts of this case are gleaned from Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). In November 2008 Plaintiff began suffering from an ulcer and a swollen groin. Plaintiff wrote a grievance to Defendant Cowan regarding the medical emergency, but Defendant Cowan denied the grievance, and Defendant Gaetz signed off on the denial. This grievance was then sent to Defendant Randal, who forwarded it to Defendant Fews who ultimately denied it. Plaintiff filed two more grievances with Defendant Cowan, and they were denied for timeliness. Plaintiff contacted Defendant Miller, who determined that there was no emergency, and denied Plaintiff's grievances.
Plaintiff saw Defendant Fuentes in June 2009, who informed Plaintiff that there was an infection, and prescribed various medications for treatment. A month later Plaintiff saw Defendant Krieg for the same reason, and was prescribed a different medication for treatment. Plaintiff saw Defendant Nwaobasi for his condition in September 2010. Defendant Nwaobasi took Plaintiff's blood pressure, but otherwise did not provide Plaintiff with further treatment. Plaintiff then wrote letters to Defendants Gaetz, Brown, Fahim, Platt, Kreig, and Shicker alleging the inadequate medical treatment in an attempt to receive outside treatment. Defendant Shicker responded that Plaintiff was being treated appropriately, so there would be no need for outside treatment. Defendant Fahim also rejected Plaintiff's request for outside treatment and surgery.
Plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to deliberate indifference of his medical needs. The Supreme Court has recognized that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners" may constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). This encompasses a broader range of conduct than intentional denial of necessary medical treatment, but it stops short of "negligen[ce] ...