that Detective McCrary violated Hale’s rights to due process and equal protection under the law. In her Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. # 31), Hale does not make the first argument as to how Detective McCrary can be held liable for any such constitutional infraction. Accordingly, as to her First Claim for Relief, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment shall be sustained. In her Second Claim for Relief, Hale alleges that Officer Vance used excessive force in detaining and arresting her, thereby violating her rights under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Comply 44.) As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Fifth and Eighth Amendments are not relevant to an excessive force claim. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 392-93, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16, 99
holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment holding that excessive force claims are not subject to exhaustion requirement holding that excessive force by a school official should be analyzed under the fourth amendment holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest