and adverse action clearly restricting the plaintiff’s liberty .... ” Velez, 401 F.3d at 87-88 (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he impact that defamation might have on job prospects, or, for that matter, romantic aspirations, friendships, self-esteem, or any other typical consequence of a bad reputation are not sufficient to meet the ‘plus’ prong of the test.” Ingber v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No. 14-CV-3942 (JMF), 2014 WL 6888777, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs highly abstract and generalized allegation, without specific evidence of a tangible deprivation, falls short in exactly this manner. See Ooley v. Citrus Heights Police Dep’t, No. 2:12-CV-00095 (JAM), 2013 WL 57018, at *6 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 3, 2013) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 603 Fed.Appx. 628 (9th Cir.2015). The
holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding that loss of quiet enjoyment is not a sufficient plus holding that claimants may be entitled to damages for loss of use and enjoyment in addition to returned rents and profits holding award that included damages for loss of enjoyment of life not excessive holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss