The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
Plaintiff Walter Jefferson, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center ("Lawrence"), 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. 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, 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 any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Lawrence, Defendants Fenoglio, Ryker, Moran and Densmore conspired to deny him medical care. On an unknown date, Plaintiff requested a thyroid blood test from Defendant Fenoglio (the prison doctor), who refused to administer the test (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff complained that the "soy diet in place make[s] him extremely sick," citing "classic symptoms of Hypothyroidism: brainfog, memory loss, low body temperature, cold all the time" (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). After the test was refused, Plaintiff further complained to nurses who "told [him] to drink more water" (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Eventually, on June 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a grievance stating that he wanted a soy-free diet and "the correct medical care to address [his] thyroid medical problems" (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). On August 17, 2010, Defendant Moran (the grievance officer) reviewed Plaintiff's grievance and recommended that it be denied (Doc. 1-1, p. 3). Defendant Warden Ryker reviewed and signed Defendant Moran's recommendation the next day (Doc. 1-1, p. 3). Defendant Moran also stated in her recommendation that Plaintiff could ask to see the doctor "at any time" and that "the doctor will determine [any] need for tests and/or special diet" (Doc. 1-1, p. 3). On September 29, 2010, Plaintiff's grievance was ruled to have no merit by the Administrative Review Board of the Illinois Department of Corrections (Doc. 1-1, p. 4).
Plaintiff has requested compensatory damages of $1 million for the "damage to [his] body from consuming ...