as a result of the searches. See id. at 586. Similarly, the plaintiffs claim was dismissed under § 1997e(e) in Harden-Bey v. Rutter, 524 F.3d 789, 795 (6th Cir.2008), for failure to state a claim, where the plaintiff did not allege that his administrative segregation resulted in any physical injury. Although Jackson repeatedly asserts that his larger “action” contains allegations of a dental injury, and implies that this meets the injury requirement, our precedent demonstrates that, absent injury related to the strip search, his Eighth Amendment claim is not cognizable under § 1997e(e). Concerning Jackson’s Fourth Amendment strip-search claim, the district court properly found the search to be constitutional under Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (<HOLDING>). ’ Defendants acknowledge that all inmates
holding that routine strip searches of pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners conducted after contact visits were constitutional holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners fourth amendment rights holding that pretrial detainees can bring substantive due process claim holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment recognizing pretrial detainees constitutional right to be from excessive force