medical care.”). But Cooleen can properly invoke the Eighth Amendment to challenge issues relating to his medical care. The very viability of his Eighth Amendment claims means that his substantive due process claims are without merit, as the Supreme Court has explained that “ ‘if a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as the Fourth or Eighth Amendment, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.’ ” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 528 U.S. 833, 843, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (quoting United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 272 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997)); see also Graham v. Poole, 476 F.Supp.2d 257, 260-61 (W.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>) (quotations and citations omitted). Federal
holding that pretrial detainees can bring substantive due process claim recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution