and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A. The Intentional Tort Claims The district court dismissed plaintiffs § 1983 claims pursuant to the common law non-survival rule because it found those claims most analogous to intentional tort causes of action. We agree with that conclusion. Plaintiffs § 1983 claims are premised on defendants’ excessive use of force and unreasonable seizure of Blouin in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has held that such claims are necessarily predicated on intentional conduct. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). As discussed above,
holding that fifth amendment custody is a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest holding that the government may not introduce evidence obtained through violations of the fourth amendment holding that a fourth amendment seizure of a fleeing suspect occurs only when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied  holding that section 1983 actions based on violation of the fourth amendment may not rest on violation of state law holding that a fourth amendment violation entails governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied 