rendered the plaintiff more vulnerable to danger than had Defendant not acted at all. Id. at 1205; see also Bright v. Westmoreland County, 443 F.3d 276, 281 (3d Cir.2006). In the context of the state-created danger analysis, negligent conduct does not rise to the level of conscience shocking. Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 426 (3d Cir.2006). In its motion, Defendant argues that the facts alleged in the second amended complaint fail to satisfy the requisites of the state-created danger exception. As set forth below, this Court agrees and, further, finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet the above-noted fourth element of a state-created danger claim and will, therefore, limit its analysis to this element. See Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 914 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Because the fourth element has not been met,
holding plaintiffs failure to comply with section 2622 requires dismissal in federal court recognizing the term act includes a failure to do any act which the law requires one to perform holding that proper remedy for failure to exhaust is dismissal of the claim without prejudice holding claim of unconscionability requires showing of both procedural and substantive elements holding that the plaintiffs failure to meet any one of the elements requires dismissal of claim