With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Inabinett claims he felt threatened by the individuals because they were running up in an aggressive mode, yelling and hollering. (Def.’s Test, at 173.) The court finds that under the instant circumstances, Defendant Inabinett did not exercise excessive force. Furthermore, the court is unable to find any evidence of injury to support Plaintiffs claim of excessive force. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Inabinett put her on the ground, handcuffed her, and put his knee in her neck for ten minutes. However, even though Plaintiff was taken to the hospital by ambulance, she was released from the hospital later the same day and is unable to produce any evidence of bruising, scrapes, or cuts to support her claim of excessive force. See Gold v. Miami, 121 F.3d 1442, 1446 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Griffin v. City of Clanton, 932 F.Supp. 1359,

A: holding that a police officer was not liable for use of excessive force since  951 requirements were satisfied
B: holding that officer did not use excessive force even though plaintiff experienced pain and minor skin abrasions from handcuffs that were applied tightly for twenty minutes
C: holding that tightening handcuffs  to their maximum for apparently gratuitous reasons along with kneeing the plaintiff in his back could be excessive force
D: holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim
B.