of an injury exists. ii. Qualified Immunity Officers Smith and Herring plead the defense of qualified immunity. The standard for that defense is that governmental officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from civil damages, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly-established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Hoard v. Sizemore, 198 F.3d 205, 211 (6th Cir.1999) (citation omitted). To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant violated such a right. Id. In general, there is, and was at the time in question, no clearly-established right for an arrested person to be free of tight handcuffs. See Nemeckay, 894 F.Supp. at 314-18 (<HOLDING>). However, it is long-established that where
holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search holding that defendants claiming qualified immunity to  1983 action were entitled to summary judgment where factual disputes were not material holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity despite their ignoring the arrestees complaints that the handcuffs were too tight holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity