at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 24, 2014) (dismissing an Eighth Amendment claim where the complaint failed to allege “that [the] [p]laintiff suffered harm or physical injury”); Flemming v. Kemp, No. 09-CV-1185, 2012 WL 4094196, at *13 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2012) (finding insufficient the plaintiffs “allegations that the use of chemical agents was excessive force” where “the use of such chemicals did not cause any harm or pain to [him]”), adopted by 2012 WL 4094009 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2012). Plaintiff identifies the specific injuries he suffered as a result of the incidents, (see Compl. § III), and these allegations of fracture, soft tissue damage, shattered nerves, arthritis, and lost vision themselves imply a use of force that was more than de minimis, see McMillian, 503 U.S. at 10, 112 S.Ct. 995 (<HOLDING>); Alston v. Bellerose, No. 12-CV-147, 2015 WL
holding that the blows directed at the plaintiff which caused bruises swelling loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate are not de minimis for eighth amendment purposes italics omitted recognizing that motions for directed verdicts are not normally directed to bits and pieces of an action holding that an individuals property interest in a 10 pool pass was de minimis holding in a five to four decision that a twentyfive year minimum sentence for stealing three golf clubs pursuant to californias threestrikes law did not violate the eighth amendment and that any criticism for the statute is properly directed at the legislature holding that directed verdict does not violate seventh amendment