raised a material issue of fact regarding the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim. See id. at 1169. The inmate must also allege “that a defendant prison official [has] a culpable state of mind, that he or she acts or fails to act with deliberate indifference to inmate health and safety.” Id. at 1168. Mr. Tennyson’s alleged deprivations fall far short of what our cases require for an Eighth Amendment claim. In Gee we dismissed a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim based on the confiscation of his canteen items, a deprivation of hygiene items for approximately 25 hours, and his incarceration in an isolation cell for four weeks as failing to state a plausible claim of a constitutional violation. 627 F.3d at 1192; see also Trujillo, 465 F.3d at 1225 n. 17 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475, 1477 (10th
recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted holding that the act of slamming  is objectively sufficiently serious to state a claim for relief under the eighth amendment alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted holding that under massachusetts law a mortgagor has standing to challenge  a mortgage assignment as invalid ineffective or void internal quotation marks omitted holding the deprivation of the inmates property interest in his mail is not a cognizable constitutional injury given the availability of adequate state postdeprivation remedies under new york law internal quotation marks omitted holding prisoners allegations of limited access to employment education housing assignment religious programming recreation time and equipment telephone and commissary did not demonstrate a deprivation of the minimal measure of lifes necessities as required to state an eighth amendment claim internal quotation marks omitted