Jeremiah Henderson v. Austin McClain, 20-2197

Oct. 15, 2018: At a Roanoke Walmart, store employees asked 70‑year‑old Jeremiah Henderson for a receipt; he refused, a confrontation ensued, and Henderson admitted touching assistant manager Shelton’s arm during the encounter.
Officer Austin McClain, on site investigating another incident and wearing a body camera, arrived within a minute, ordered Henderson detained, and handcuffed him for about 25 minutes before removing cuffs and issuing a trespass bar. McClain told Henderson he was detained but not under arrest.
Oct. 17: Henderson filed a citizen’s complaint alleging excessive force and difficulty breathing when McClain grabbed his arm. McClain was instructed to follow up and later interviewed the employees.
Oct. 19: After re‑interviewing Shelton (who initially declined but ultimately agreed to press charges after learning of Henderson’s complaint), McClain sought and obtained a magistrate’s warrant for misdemeanor assault and battery; charges were served during a later police interview and remained pending until Henderson’s acquittal on May 1, 2019.
Henderson sued McClain under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false arrest, malicious/retaliatory prosecution, and excessive force. The district court granted McClain qualified immunity on summary judgment; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for detention/arrest (false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliatory prosecution)	Henderson: touching was not unlawful battery; employees’ initial refusal to press charges and his health/age show lack of probable cause.	McClain: on‑scene facts (agitated state, grabbing Shelton’s arm) objectively supported a reasonable belief of battery under Virginia law.	Probable cause existed; qualified immunity granted on false arrest and malicious/retaliatory prosecution claims.
Whether charges were a retaliatory prosecution or based on improper omissions to magistrate	Henderson: McClain pursued charges in retaliation for the citizen complaint and omitted material facts to secure a warrant.	McClain: prosecution followed from witness statements/bodycam; motive does not negate objective probable cause; any omission affects magistrate weight but not the objective inquiry.	No actionable retaliatory prosecution; omission (if any) did not negate objective probable cause.
Excessive force (handcuffing and force used during detention)	Henderson: he is elderly and ill; force was unnecessary and aggravated his breathing problems.	McClain: Henderson was initially noncompliant/resistant; handcuffing was a reasonable on‑scene response and handcuffs rarely constitute excessive force when probable cause exists.	Use of handcuffs and force were reasonable under the circumstances; no excessive force violation.

Estate of Jones v. City of Martinsburg, 961 F.3d 661 (4th Cir. 2020) (qualified immunity two‑step inquiry)
Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) (probable cause generally defeats retaliatory arrest claims)
Hupp v. Cook, 931 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019) (probable cause standard and magistrate findings’ weight in malicious prosecution context)
E.W. v. Dolgos, 884 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2018) (handcuffing rarely constitutes excessive force when probable cause exists)
Brown v. Gilmore, 278 F.3d 362 (4th Cir. 2002) (reasonableness of force judged from on‑scene perspective)
Humbert v. Mayor of Balt. City, 866 F.3d 546 (4th Cir. 2017) (definition of probable cause for arrest)
Smith v. Munday, 848 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2017) (totality of circumstances for probable cause review)
Simms v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 704 S.E.2d 359 (Va. 2011) (Virginia definition of battery: contact done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner)