in light of the entire record. However, if plaintiffs testimony is credited and all reasonable inferences are drawn in plaintiffs favor, plaintiff could prove to a rational jury that this alleged gratuitous use of force was an objectively unreasonable use of force. See, e.g., Johnson v. City of New York, No. 05-CV-2357 (SHS), 2006 WL 2354815, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2006) (denying summary judgment on claim of excessive force during execution of a search and noting that “[wjhile not every push or shove violates the Fourth Amendment, ... there surely would be no objective need to ‘stomp’ and ‘kick’ an individual already under police control.” (citations and quotations omitted)); Pierre-Antoine v. City of New York, No. 04-CV-6987 (GEL), 2006 WL 1292076, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2006) (<HOLDING>); Graham v. Springer, No. 03-CV-6190 (CJS),
holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment holding that an officers use of force against a plaintiff was objectively reasonable considering the force the plaintiff herself exercised in resisting police custody holding that repeatedly striking a subdued individual would constitute an objectively unreasonable use of force under the fourth amendment holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment holding that an officer cannot use further nondeadly force against a restrained and subdued suspect