of force beyond the handcuffing, Plaintiff has presented no evidence of an unreasonable use of force by the Defendants. The court finds that the abrasions experienced by Plaintiff as a result of tight handcuffing are de minimis injuries, and that the minimal degree of injury warrants summary judgment on her excessive force claim. See Lemmo v. McKoy, No. 08-CV-4264 (RJD), 2011 WL 843974, at *5 (E.D.N.Y Mar. 8, 2011) (“Injuries held to be de minimis for purposes of defeating excessive force claims include short-term pain, swelling, and bruising, brief numbness from tight handcuffing, claims of minor discomfort from tight handcuffing, and two superficial scratches with a cut inside the mouth.” (internal citations omitted) (collecting cases)); see also Faruki, 2012 WL 1085533, at *6-7 (<HOLDING>); Sachs v. Cantwell, No. 10-CV-1663 (JPO), 2012
holding that hypothetical question should have included allegations of pain which were supported by record holding that conclusory allegations in an affidavit have no probative value and a nonmoving party cannot rely on the eonclusory allegations to avoid summary judgment holding that because the allegations purportedly suppressed by the government were not material an evidentiary hearing further exploring the  allegations themselves and the governments knowledge of the allegations is unnecessary holding that allegations of bruising and photographs of redness and swelling were not sufficient to support a constitutional violation and granting summary judgment because allegations of a hairline fracture and nerve damage were not supported by any evidence in the record holding that evidence of other allegations of torture was inadmissible in part because it was not similar to the allegations made by defendant