intent of exercising dominion and control over the person. See DeShaney 489 U.S. at 200, 109 S.Ct. 998 (explaining the State’s affirmative duty to protect arises from the limitation it imposes on the freedom to act); see also id. at 206, 109 S.Ct. 998 (Brennan J., dissenting) (“[T]o the Court, the only fact that seems to count as an ‘affirmative act of restraining an individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf is direct physical control.”). The complaint’s allegations do not satisfy this demanding standard. Apart from the fact that the complaint does not allege the special relationship upon which the custody inquiry depends, Defendants did not restrain decedent’s liberty or freedom to act through a show of force or authority. See Ye v. United States, 484 F.3d 634, 641 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Defendants did not force decedent against his
holding that a doctors report that merely repeats a patients assertions about her level of pain and ability to sleep stand and walk is not objective medical evidence holding that period of limitations on a patients negligence cause of action began to run when the patient knew or had reason to know about the foreign object left in her body holding that doctors do not have to accept patients holding a doctors assurances that his patient had nothing to worry about and was fine did not constitute a restraint of liberty regardless of the patients reliance on those assurances to forego medical assistance holding that a patients settlement of a prior action brought against him by doctors for payment of a bill did not bar medical malpractice action against doctors