show that the defendant was “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. Id. Adderly’s first conditions of confinement claim arises from his time in a strip cell from February 5, 2005, to February 12, 2005. Adderly asserted that he was deprived of clothing, toiletries, legal mail, a pillow, and a mattress, and was denied access to the law library and showers for seven days. Adderly asserted essentially the same basis for a conditions of confinement claim based on his stay in a strip cell from April 7, 2005, to April 14, 2005. Although the deprivations Adderly allegedly suffered during those periods of confinement may have been harsh; they do not constitute a denial of “the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities.” See, e.g., Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 444-47 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, although Adderly claimed prison
holding that two bursts of pepper spray to stop fighting in a cell was not considered excessive force and did not violate prisoners eighth amendment rights holding the defendant lacked any expectation of privacy in his cell so the jailer had the right to inspect anything in his cell holding no eighth amendment violation where prisoner was placed in a strip cell without clothes the water in the cell was turned off and the mattress removed and prisoners bedding clothing legal mail and hygienic supplies were withheld holding seizure of arrestees cell phone lawful but finding the fourth amendment requires a warrant to perform a forensic search of the lawfully seized cell phone holding that it was not clearly established in 2002 that forcing a prisoner to sleep without a mattress but with a bed and a blanket violated the eighth amendment