medication, King filed a timely appeal. In the main, this appeal presents the question of whether the district court erred in denying Plaintiff-Appellant’s requested Fourth Amendment jury instructions with regard to Kramer. We address that portion of the appeal first. II In granting Kramer’s motion in li-mine to preclude Plaintiff-Appellant from arguing the applicability of the Fourth Amendment, the district court stated that Plaintiff-Appellant had waived her Fourth Amendment claim. Slip Op. at 6 (W.D.Wis. Jan. 9, 2013), ECF No. 643 (“[Pjlaintiff waived any right to a Fourth Amendment claim premised on an objectively unreasonable standard by failing to timely pursue such a claim. The court will not allow such a significant shift in plaintiffs theory of recovery on t th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Likewise, Williams
holding that a claim is not properly before the appellate court because it is axiomatic that arguments not raised below are waived on appeal holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived holding arguments not raised on appeal waived holding that arguments not raised below are waived for appeal holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived