b. Verbal Harassment According to the Complaint, Defendant Ficorotta “spit in [Plaintiff’s] face and called [him] a nigger,” and Defendant Middleton “harassed] ... [and] taunted [him].” (Compl. § II.) Such allegations, even accepted as true, are not “objectively harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation.” McMillian, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. 995 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, courts have consistently held that “the mere allegation of verbal abuse, however repugnant it may be, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and is not cognizable under ... § 1983.” Webster v. Fischer, 694 F.Supp.2d 163, 187 (N.D.N.Y.2000), aff'd 398 Fed.Appx. 683 (2d Cir.2010); see also Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir.1986) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Tavares v. City of N.Y., No. 08-CV-3782, 2011
holding ifrp does not deprive inmates of constitutional rights to due process holding that namecalling without any appreciable injury did not violate an inmates constitutional rights holding that prisoners evidentiary burden under ordinary firmness standard was to show that guards references to him as an informant or rat actually risked inciting other inmates against the plaintiff and was not merely harmless namecalling holding inmates in segregation unit without charges being filed against them and without informing them of reasons for such confinement violated inmates due process rights holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury