fourteenth amendment imposes upon those state officials no obligation to prevent that harm.” Horton v. Flenory, 889 F.2d 454, 457 (3d Cir.1989). The Court in DeShaney did, however, recognize “that in certain limited circumstances the Constitution imposes upon the State affirmative duties of care and protection with respect to particular individuals.” 489 U.S. at 198, 109 S.Ct. 998; see also Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962) (recognizing that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, requires the State to provide adequate medical care to incarcerated prisoners); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Revere v. Massachusetts General Hosp., 463
holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment holding that the substantive component of the fourteenth amendments due process clause requires the state to provide involuntarilycommitted mental patients with such services as are necessary to ensure their reasonable safety from themselves and others holding municipalities  are not persons within the meaning of the due process clause of the fifth or fourteenth amendments holding that the state must provide involuntarily committed mental patients with services that insure their reasonable safety holding that for federal court to grant full faith and credit to state court judgment state proceedings must satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the fourteenth amendments due process clause