ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Elbert Lee Vaught, IV, ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 19, 2011 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on April 26, 2011. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.)
Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state any claims upon which relief may be granted.
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff brings this action for violations of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: G. Ugwueze, N. Warren, J. Clark Kelso, K. Englert, A. Enenmoh, Powell, C. Hammond, D. Foston, C. M. Heck, M. Crum, T. Byers, D. Hermosillo, G. Martinez, K. J. Allen, T. Akin, Iybarra, and K. Santoro.
Plaintiff alleges the following: July 1, 2010, Plaintiff arrived at his new facility. He was seen by a nurse and told her that he was a chronic care inmate. On August 2, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Ugwueze. Defendant Ugwueze refused to look at the medical records that Plaintiff brought with him, informed Plaintiff that they were only there to deal with his hepatitis-C, and did a brief physical examination. Defendant Ugwueze then told Plaintiff that he could not be in the pain that he described and that the pain is probably in Plaintiff's head. Defendant Ugwueze again refused to look at photographs of Plaintiff's stabbing. Defendant took Plaintiff off of gabapentin and placed him on noratriptalene, which is used to treat low levels of pain.
On August 4, 2010, Plaintiff was taken to an outside hospital for severe chest pain. Plaintiff returned to the prison clinic on August 8, 2010 for a follow-up appointment for his chest pain. As a result of this appointment by another doctor, a MRI was ordered; however, Plaintiff's medications were not changed.
On August 18, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Powell. Defendant Powell refused to re-issue a light duty chrono and refused to refer Plaintiff to see a doctor because he was already scheduled for a follow-up appointment.
On September 10, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Ugwueze about being taken off the pain medication. Defendant examined Plaintiff and determined that Plaintiff should be seen by psych because the pain is in his head. Plaintiff remained on gabapentin to deal with the pain.
On September 15, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Powell. Defendant Powell issued Plaintiff a cane because he complained that his leg was going numb, but refused to refer him to the doctor because he had an appointment scheduled for November.
Plaintiff requested medical care on September 18, 22, and 30, 2010, but was not called to see the nurse or doctor. Plaintiff was granted a lower bunk chrono, but not a lower tier chrono. On October 16, 2010, Plaintiff fell down the stairs. Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Powell who issued a lower bunk/lower tier chrono. Plaintiff ...