With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". they done so, the substantial harms that followed would have been avoided. This is sufficient to satisfy “but for” causation, which is the standard in this Circuit. III. Conclusion Dr. Kim committed no constitutional tort. Dr. Kim did not deprive Ye of his liberty, and therefore did not violate the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. We will reverse the District Court’s denial of summary judgment for Dr. Kim, as no facts have been alleged that could support state-created danger liability. 1 . This Court “has read DeShaney primarily as setting out a test of physical custody” for purposes of determining whether there is a "special relationship” between the state and the plaintiff. D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Tech. Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1370 (3d Cir.1992) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Because Ye neither pled nor adduced proof of

A: holding that no special relationship exists between state and school children despite compulsory attendance laws
B: holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student
C: recognizing the existence of the special relationship
D: recognizing employeremployee relationship between county school board and teacher
A.