The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Ricky Cole, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is serving a life sentence for murder. 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, 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, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), 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; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff's complaint names Dr. Fahim (Medical Director at Menard), Dr. Shicker (IDOC Medical Director), and Dr. Larson (Regional Medical Director for Wexford), whom Plaintiff claims each violated his constitutional rights.
In May, 2010, Plaintiff alleges that he began complaining about an inguinal hernia*fn1 that was bulging out in his groin and causing pain in his "lower body area" (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). Sometime after that, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Pratt, Dr. Magda, and Dr. Fuentez (who are not named as Defendants), each of whom denied Plaintiff any pain medication or surgical remedies (Doc. 1, p. 4). On June 21, 2010, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Fahim saying that "[t]he pain in [his] groin area has become . . . severe" (Doc. 1, p. 15). In this letter, Plaintiff also requested authorization to have corrective surgery for his hernia (Doc. 1, p. 15).
On July 27, 2010, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Shicker complaining of non-treatment of his hernia and requesting his assistance with obtaining surgery (Doc. 1, p. 11). Defendant Shicker responded on August 4, 2010, recommending Plaintiff use the grievance process to remedy his situation (Doc. 1, p. 11). In this letter, Defendant Shicker also informed Plaintiff that "not all hernias need surgical repair" (Doc. 1, p. 11). Between May 7, 2010, and August, 2010, Plaintiff filed three grievances with Counselor Reardon and Grievance Officer Cowan, none of which were returned or addressed (Doc. 1, pp. ...