The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
Plaintiff Keynte Davis, an inmate in Danville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on incidents that occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center ("Robinson"). Plaintiff is serving a seventeen year sentence for manufacturing cocaine. 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.
On October 20, 2010, Plaintiff was playing chess in the Robinson dayroom when he was approached by Inmate Benson, who said Plaintiff owed him money. Defendant Walton asked Plaintiff if everything was okay, to which Plaintiff responded that he did not know, but that everything would be fine. Plaintiff then went into his cell; Inmate Benson followed and a fight ensued. Benson hit Plaintiff in the eye and bit Plaintiff's ear and arm. At this point, Defendant Walton and another officer told the inmates to stop. Plaintiff claims that there were several officers standing around watching the assault. As Plaintiff moved to get off the ground, Inmate Benson stabbed him in the arm with a pen.
Plaintiff was taken to the health care unit ("HCU"), where it was determined that he would need to be transferred to the local hospital. Once there, doctors decided that the portion of his ear that had been bitten off could not be reattached because too much time had passed since his injury. Plaintiff claims that after his return to the prison, when officers came by his cell to give him pills and bandage his ear, they called him "Holyfield"*fn1 (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff does not request any specific relief in his complaint other ...