The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
Plaintiff Ben E. Thomas, an inmate at Taylorville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which occurred while Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Clinton County Jail. 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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; this action is subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff alleges that his detainment at the Clinton County Jail caused him to miss two previously-scheduled doctors' appointments (Doc. 1, p. 5). On January 11, 2010, prior to his arrest, Plaintiff was admitted to Saint Louis University Hospital for hip surgery (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff was discharged on January 14, 2010, with eighteen staples in his hip and told to return on January 25, 2010, for their removal (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Plaintiff was arrested and detained on January 24, 2010, at which point he notified officials of his medical needs (Doc. 1, p. 5). Several days later while at the Jail, Defendant Unknown Nurse removed Plaintiff's staples; however, Plaintiff claims this Defendant never cleaned his wounds and did not dress them daily (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff missed an appointment on February 23, 2010, with Dr. Whiting at a St. Louis hospital and another appointment with a gastroenterologist a few weeks later regarding his "chronic diarrhea problems" (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff asserts that because of these missed appointments and Defendant Unknown Nurse's missteps, he is currently limited to a wheelchair and mentally stressed (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff requests an early release from incarceration and compensation for his ...