Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a de minimis injury. Nevertheless, our opinions from that period clearly illustrate that whether a plaintiff has satisfied the Norman standard depends on the particular facts of his case. Ussery maintains that the officers caused “severe lacerations,” “extensive bruising,” “increased bi-lateral hearing loss,” “loss of vision in his right eye,” “chronic swelling and loss of feeling,” “recurring migraines,” and “physical and emotional pain and suffering” — all of which resulted in “lasting] physical and emotional damage.” Many of these injuries could have an enduring impact on health and wellbeing. These are the sort of injuries that may affect mobility, sensory capabilities, emotional stability, and other daily functions for an extended period of time. An 58 n. 3 (4th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Robles v. Prince George’s Cnty., 302 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a robbery of 40 to 50 satisfied the de minimis standard (B) holding that fiveday suspension was not a de minimis deprivation (C) holding that a contusion cut to his lips bruises lesions to his wrist and a strained neck and back exceed the de minimis threshold (D) holding that  acute contusions of the wrist and psychological injury from being handcuffed were de minimis and insufficient to find excessive force (E) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible
Output (English): holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible