The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Michael S. Shavers, formerly an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on the incident that led to Plaintiff's arrest and subsequent conviction. Plaintiff is now serving a term of mandatory supervised release, following his incarceration on a three year sentence for theft. 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.28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, 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, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 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. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the complaint and supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action shall be dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that on October 29, 2009, he stole a watch from Butterfield Jewelers in Collinsville, Illinois, and fled from the store on foot. He was hit by a pickup truck, which struck him in the lower back and right hip area, but he continued to run a short distance. After Plaintiff stopped, he was tackled and knocked to the ground by Defendant Davis, which caused pain to shoot up Plaintiff's spine and lower back area. Defendants Lochmann, Throm, and Bertels then dove on top of Plaintiff while he was lying on the ground, and he alleges that their actions caused him severe emotional distress.
Plaintiff was then arrested, and while he was being booked by Defendant Hunt, he requested medical attention. Defendant Hunt failed to obtain any medical attention for Plaintiff, which he alleges caused him severe emotional distress.
Plaintiff claims that he later learned from a prison doctor that he has degenerative disc disease and complications from a damaged sciatic nerve, which Plaintiff attributes to the injury he ...