Analysis Section 1983, by its own terms, prohibits constitutional violations under color of state law. In this case, Appellants claim that the Appellees violated their son’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments when they failed to properly attend to his urgent medical needs following his arrest. Persons within state police custody enjoy the protections afforded by the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments, which include the right to obtain adequate medical care. Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 866 (4th Cir.1988) (explaining that the denial of medical care by state officials can give rise to claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause); see also City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Belcher v. Oliver, 898 F.2d 32, 34 (4th
holding that pretrial detainees possess a constitutional right against deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs because the due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as great as the eighth amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner holding that because pretrial detainees fourteenth amendment rights are comparable to prisoners eighth amendment rights the same standards apply holding that pretrial detainees have at least the same protections under the fourteenth amendment as posttrial detainees have under the eighth amendment holding in light of the supreme courts observation that the due process rights of pretrial detainees are at least as great as the eighth amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner  that the eighth amendment provides a minimum standard of care for determining the rights of pretrial detainees quoting revere 463 us at 244 103 sct 2979 holding that deliberate indifference is the level of culpability pretrial detainees must establish to maintain a failure to protect claim under the fourteenth amendment