Defendants appeal the district court’s order denying them qualified immunity on Gary Neal Sadler’s due process claim. We need not consider Defendants’ argument *763 that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the due process claim because Sadler never claimed they violated his right to due process; Sadler alleged only an Eighth Amendment violation. Thus, the district court erred when it instructed the jury on the elements of a due process violation. See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). We decline to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over Defendants’ arguments that the district court erred in granting Sadler judgment as a matter of law on his Eighth Amendment claim (to which Defendants do not assert qualified immunity), because that claim is not inextricably intertwined with the due process claim, (to which Defendants do assert qualified immunity). See Taylor v. Waters, 81 F.3d 429, 437 (4th Cir. 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

REVERSED AND REMANDED