The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jobes brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on an incident that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Menard Correctional Center. At the time the complaint was filed, Plaintiff was serving a two year sentence for obstruction of justice and one year for wire-tapping.*fn1
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; portions of this action are subject to dismissal.
These allegations are taken from Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lillian Overall,*fn2 named in the caption but described in the complaint only as "dentist," was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He states that he was seen by the dentist on November 17, 2011. The dentist determined that three of Plaintiff's teeth were abscessed and needed to be pulled, but only gave him Keflex*fn3 and Tylenol for pain. From November 17, 2011, through January 4, 2012, Plaintiff made an estimated twenty requests to have the three teeth pulled, but was never called to the health care unit. Plaintiff departed for a court appearance on January 4, 2012. He returned on January 19, 2012, and woke up the next day with one side of his face swollen from the abscessed teeth. Plaintiff went to the health care unit from January 20, 2012, through January 27, 2012. He received Tylenol for pain and other medications for infection. Plaintiff states that during his stay in the health care unit, he also had seven holes put in his arms from elbow to hands on both sides.
Plaintiff states that on January 21, 2012, Defendant Rebecca Stefani wrote a false disciplinary report that Plaintiff would not follow the physician's orders. Plaintiff does not describe the details of the incident in question, referring instead to an illegible attachment to the complaint. Due to the report, Defendant Major R. Dilday placed Plaintiff in temporary confinement. Plaintiff also names as defendants Major Westermor and Lt. Page, since they "did the same as [Defendant Dilday] did" (Doc. 1, p. 11). Defendant C/O Jones gave false allegations that he witnessed the incident.
On January 26, 2012, the adjustment committee held a hearing regarding Plaintiff's ticket. The committee refused to hear Plaintiff or his witness and gave him two months segregation, commissary restriction, demotion to C grade, and halted his transfer to Centralia Correctional Center.
Plaintiff seeks as relief appointment of counsel, compensatory and punitive damages, dental treatment from without the prison, ...