SMITH, Circuit Judge.
William Edward Royster filed an eight-count second amended complaint against, inter alia, Kansas City, Missouri Police Officer Tommy Nichols; the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners (“the Board”); Kona Macadamia, Inc. d/b/a Kona Grill (“Kona Grill”); George D. Rosenkoetter; and Chesley Brown International, Inc. d/b/a Plaza Security (“Plaza Security”),1 asserting a variety of federal and state claims arising out of his arrest at the Kona Grill. The district court2 granted summary judgment to all the defendants. Royster appeals, arguing that the district court improperly weighed facts. We affirm.
I. Background
“As this is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment, we review and recite the facts in the light most favorable to [Royster] as the non-moving party.” Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.Bd 811, 814 n. 3 (8th Cir.2010).
On February 28, 2006, Royster went to the Kona Grill between 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Upon his arrival, he handed a Kona Grill employee his American Express credit card to open a tab. While at the Kona Grill, Royster and a friend ordered 15 Gray Goose vodka drinks, totaling $156.00 with tax.
Around 8:00 p.m., Rosenkoetter, the Kona Grill manager on duty, asked Royster to leave the establishment because of Royster’s unacceptable conduct. According to Rosenkoetter, he contacted Plaza Security stating that he “need[ed] someone escorted out” because Royster was “refusing to leave the restaurant.” Before security arrived, Royster left the Kona Grill without reclaiming his American Express credit card and without signing a credit-card receipt. Plaza Security sent Officer Nichols, a Kansas City, Missouri police officer working off-duty for Plaza Security, in response to the call. According to Officer Nichols, Plaza Security “[despatch advised of a disturbance, a party refusing to pay.” Officer Nichols testified that, upon his arrival at the Kona Grill, he “was told [by Rosenkoetter] that the parties were being told to leave from an inappropriate comment and that they refused to pay their tab.”3
Shortly after leaving the Kona Grill, Royster returned to get his American Express credit card. Viewing the facts in the [685]*685light most favorable to Royster — as we must — the following events then occurred. Upon Royster’s return to the Kona Grill, “there were two Kansas City police officers dressed in Kansas City police officer’s uniform[s] and Plaza Security that walked into the [Kona] Grill as [Royster] was approaching it.” Then, “the Kansas City police officers and the Plaza Security came back out on to the sidewalk accompanying the manager and that’s when [everyone was] together on the sidewalk.” As the officers and Rosenkoetter “were walking out of the [Kona] Grill onto the sidewalk in [Royster’s] direction,” Rosenkoetter pointed at Royster and said, “That’s the guy.” When the officers and Plaza Security approached Royster, he asked what was wrong. Then, either Rosenkoetter or one of the police officers “brought up that [Royster] had stolen” something. Royster asked, ‘What did I steal?” Officer Nichols then responded that Royster “didn’t pay [his] bar tab, that [he] didn’t pay the bill.” In response, Royster said, ‘Well[,] [Rosenkoetter’s] got my card.”
Thereafter, Rosenkoetter went back into the Kona Grill and asked the server to close Royster’s tab. To close the tab, the server swiped Royster’s credit card through the credit-card machine. The credit-card receipt did not show an itemized receipt of the drinks purchased. The server’s normal practice was to print the “itemized receipt along with [the] eredit[-]card receipt,” but she did not “remember ... 100%” whether she had done so that evening. After the server closed out the tab and printed off the credit-card receipt, she handed the card, the receipt, and all other items back to Rosenkoetter. Rosenkoetter then exited the Kona Grill with “a fistful of what appeared to be receipts” and Royster’s credit card. Royster then “reached across through the police office[r] toward [Rosenkoetter] and ... grabbed [his] card back.” Royster testified that after he obtained his card, Officer Nichols told Royster “to sign the receipts.” In response, Royster told Officer Nichols that he “hadn’t seen the receipts, that [he] do[es]n’t just sign blindly something [he] ha[s]n’t looked at.” Royster informed Officer Nichols, “I’m not going to sign something that I haven’t looked at.”
According to Rosenkoetter’s testimony, which Royster credits,4 Officer Nichols then responded, “You need to sign this bill ... or you’re going to be arrested for theft of restaurant services.”5 At some point during the exchange, Officer Nichols had asked Rosenkoetter, ‘Will you prosecute if he refuses to pay the tab?” Rosenkoetter had responded, “Yes.” Officer Nichols had then asked Rosenkoetter, “Will you sign a General Ordinance Summons?” Rosenkoetter again replied, “Yes.”6 According to the Joint Stipulation of Uncontroverted Facts (“Stipulation”), Rosenkoetter did, in fact, “sign[] the general ordinance summons as the complaining party.”
After Royster again informed Officer Nichols that he was “not signing anything [he] ha[s]n’t seen,” Officer Nichols replied, “Then you’re under arrest.” In summary, [686]*686both parties admitted the following facts in their Stipulation:
11. Officer Tommy Nichols asked that William Royster sign his credit card charge.
12. William Royster did not sign the charge for the $156.00 bill for Kona Grill’s restaurant services and product.
13. Officer Tommy Nichols arrested William Royster for a municipal violation of failing to pay for restaurant services which totaled $156.00.
When Officer Nichols began handcuffing Royster’s hands behind his back, Royster informed Officer Nichols that he had “service-connected injuries from [his] Naval service from an ejection that [he] sustained.” He told Officer Nichols that he had “a shoulder injury and a back injury.” Royster further requested that Officer Nichols “not handcuff [Royster] behind [his] back” but instead to “please handcuff [Royster] in front.” Officer Nichols handcuffed Royster behind his back despite Royster’s request that he be handcuffed in front due to an old shoulder injury.
The Board establishes the policies and procedures for officers to follow in the operations of the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD). When Officer Nichols arrested Royster, he was dressed in a KCPD uniform. The handcuffs and the gun that Officer Nichols carried were “Police Department issue.” Off-duty officers like Officer Nichols are bound by all KCPD policies. KCPD policy provides, in relevant part, that [w]hen an officer places a person in handcuffs, the officer will:
d. Make every attempt to place handcuffs behind the arrest[ee]’s back. If the arrest[ee] has a medical or physical condition that would preclude them from being handcuffed behind their back, they will be handcuffed (double-locked) in front, and a wagon will be requested to transport the arrest[ee]. Once the arrest[ee] has been transported to the Detention Unit at Headquarters, the officer will inform detention personnel that the arrest[ee] is handcuffed in front and the reason for this action.
The charges against Royster for theft of restaurant services were eventually dismissed, and Royster then brought the instant suit against, inter alia, Officer Nichols, the Board, Plaza Security, the Kona Grill, and Rosenkoetter. In his second amended complaint, Royster brought § 1983 claims against Officer Nichols, the Board, Plaza Security, the Kona Grill, and Rosenkoetter. In Count I, he alleged that Nichols and Rosenkoetter “knew or should have known that they had no probable cause to seize and arrest Royster, or to cause his arrest,” resulting in an “unconstitutional application of excessive force and ... an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”7 In Count III,8 Royster alleged that the Board violated his constitutional rights by failing to or inadequately (1) supervising officers [687]*687regarding the appropriate use of force, (2) training and supervising officers “in the techniques of properly conducting criminal investigations,” (3) training and supervising officers regarding their “obligation to truthfully report occurrences rather than to falsify information to cover up misconduct,” and (4) disciplining officers who violate the law. Count III also alleged that the Board had “inadequate policies, practices, eustoms[,] or procedures pertaining to ... [c]overing up of police misconduct by falsifying and fabricating evidence.” Similarly, Count IV claimed that the Kona Grill and Plaza Security had violated Royster’s constitutional rights by failing to or inadequately (1) training and supervising its employees regarding investigatory techniques and customer complaints, (2) training and supervising its employees regarding their “obligation to truthfully report occurrences rather than to falsify information to cover up misconduct,” and (3) disciplining employees who violate the law during an investigation. Royster also alleged that the Kona Grill and Plaza Security had “inadequate policies, practices, customs[,] or procedures pertaining to ... [e]overing up of misconduct by falsifying and fabricating evidence.”
In addition to the § 1983 claims, Royster also brought the following state-law claims against Officer Nichols, Plaza Security, the Kona Grill, and Rosenkoetter: (1) false arrest and unlawful imprisonment (Count V); (2) an alternative claim for negligence resulting in wrongful arrest and detention (Count VI); (3) malicious prosecution (Count VII); and (4) the tort of outrageous conduct (Count VIII).9
All of the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, which the district court granted. See Royster, 2010 WL 5067605; Royster v. Nichols, No. 08-0141-CV-W-FJG, 2011 WL 2011479 (W.D.Mo. May 23, 2011) (unpublished).
II. Discussion
On appeal, Royster argues that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment on all of his claims to Officer Nichols, the Board, Plaza Security, the Kona Grill, and Rosenkoetter. According to Royster, the district court improperly weighed the facts in determining that all of his claims failed.
“This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record.” St. Martin v. City of St. Paul, 680 F.3d 1027, 1032 (8th Cir.2012).
A. Ojficer Nichols
1. Wrongful Arrest
According to Royster, Officer Nichols lacked probable cause to arrest him for a simple civil dispute between a customer and a proprietor over a bill for restaurant services. Royster contends that, prior to his arrest, Officer Nichols did not allow Royster to review the credit card charge and the check even after Royster advised him that he would not sign a receipt that he had not seen. He concludes that, under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Nichols lacked probable cause to believe that Royster had actually committed the crime of theft of restaurant services. Royster contends that Officer Nichols based his decision to arrest solely on Rosenkoetter’s complaint.
“A warrantless arrest is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if it is [688]*688supported by probable cause.” Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir.2010) (quotation and citation omitted). We must determine, as a matter of law, whether Officer Nichols “had probable cause at the time of [Royster]’s arrest.” Id. “An officer has probable cause to make a warrantless arrest when the facts and circumstances are sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that the defendant has committed or is committing an offense.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). In determining whether probable cause existed at the time of the arrest, “we look at the totality of the circumstances as set forth in the information available to the officer[ ] at the time of arrest.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). “As probable cause is determined at the moment the arrest was made, any later[-]developed facts are irrelevant to the probable cause analysis for an arrest.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). In evaluating whether probable cause existed for Royster’s arrest, “we determine from the totality of the circumstances whether a prudent person would believe [Royster] had committed or was committing a crime, giving [Officer Nichols] substantial latitude in interpreting and drawing inferences from factual circumstances.” Id. at 817 (quotation and citation omitted).
Generally, an officer is “entitled to rely on the veracity of information supplied by the victim of a crime.” Id. at 817 (quotation and citation omitted). “In considering information given by a victim of a crime, an officer need not conduct a ‘minitriar before effectuating an arrest although he cannot avoid ‘minimal further investigation’ if it would have exonerated the suspect.” Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518, 523 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F.3d 646, 650 (8th Cir.1999) (holding that no probable cause existed where officer only spoke with suspect for 20 seconds, ignored exculpatory evidence, and disregarded eyewitness account)). “When an officer is faced with conflicting information that cannot be immediately resolved, however, he may have arguable probable cause to arrest a suspect.” Id. Although “[i]t is usually not possible for an officer to be certain about a suspect’s state of mind at the time of a criminal act, ... he need not rely on an explanation given by the suspect.” Id. at 524 (internal citations omitted). Thus, the officer may “rely on the implications of the information known to him when assessing whether a suspect possessed the state of mind required for the crime.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Ultimately, “Fourth Amendment analysis ... turns on what a reasonable officer could have believed under the circumstances, not on the state of mind or subjective beliefs of the[ ] particular officer! ].” McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d 354, 359 (8th Cir.2011).
“Viewing the record and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to [Royster], while simultaneously viewing the facts from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,10” Montoya v. City of Flandreau, 669 F.3d 867, [689]*689871 (8th Cir.2012) (quotation and alteration omitted), we conclude that Officer Nichols had probable cause to arrest Royster. First, Royster has not controverted Officer Nichols’s testimony that Plaza Security informed him that there was a “disturbance” at the Kona Grill involving “a party refusing to pay” or that Rosenkoetter informed him upon his arrival that the parties were asked to leave the Kona Grill because of “an inappropriate comment” and a “refus[al] to pay their tab.” See Fisher, 619 F.3d at 817 (“Undisputed facts show that Christeson called the Raymore police and told them that ‘a girl at the service desk [is] trying to cash some fake money orders.’ ” (alteration in original)).
Second, Rosenkoetter identified Royster to Officer Nichols as the individual who had not paid his bill, stating, “That’s the guy.” See Fisher, 619 F.3d at 817 (“Christeson confidently identified Fisher to Sergeant Loney as the person at the front desk who had brought the fake money orders.”).
Third, Officer Nichols, by Royster’s own recitation of the facts, did speak with both parties regarding the dispute. Officer Nichols saw that Rosenkoetter was carrying — in Royster’s own words — “receipts” out of the Kona Grill and discussed with Rosenkoetter whether he would prosecute and sign a General Ordinance Summons if Royster “refuses to pay the tab.” Officer Nichols informed Royster of the complaint against him — that he did not pay his bill. When Officer Nichols told Royster “to sign the receipts,” Royster told Officer Nichols, “I’m not going to sign something that I haven’t looked at.” In the Stipulation, all parties agree that Royster “did not sign the charge for the $156.00 bill for Kona Grill’s restaurant services and product.” We conclude that Royster’s refusal to “sign the charge for the $156.00 bill”— even if Royster correctly believed that he did not have to sign — gave Officer Nichols probable cause to arrest Royster for theft of restaurant services. Officer Nichols “was entitled to rely on what he was told by [Rosenkoetter],” i.e., that Royster had not paid his bill. Borgman, 646 F.3d at 523. Moreover, Royster confirmed to Officer Nichols that he was not going to sign the charge. As the district court noted, “[i]t is irrelevant for the probable cause analysis, that the bill was eventually paid by American Express.” Royster, 2010 WL 5067605, at *10. The relevant inquiry is “whether, viewing the evidence in [Royster’s] favor, [Officer Nichols] ... had probable cause at the time of the arrest; that is, whether the facts and circumstances would have led to a reasonable conclusion that a crime had been committed.” Fisher, 619 F.3d at 817 (emphasis added). At the time of the arrest, a reasonable officer would have known that Kansas City, Missouri ordinance § 50-106 provides, in relevant part:
(b) A person commits the ordinance violation of stealing if he appropriates property or services of another with [690]*690the purpose to deprive him thereof, either without his consent or by means of deceit.
(c) Evidence of the following is admissible in any criminal prosecution under this section on the issue of the requisite knowledge of belief of the alleged stealer:
(2) That he left the hotel, restaurant, inn or boardinghouse with the intent not to pay for property or services.
(Emphases added.)
Again, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Royster, a reasonable officer would know that (1) § 50-106 makes it a crime to leave a restaurant with the intent not to pay, (2) Rosenkoetter identified Royster as the individual who had not paid his bill, and (3) Royster would not and did not, for whatever reason, sign the charge for the $156 bill. Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Officer Nichols had probable cause to arrest Royster for theft of restaurant services.11
2. Excessive Force
Royster argues that Officer Nichols cuffed Royster’s hands behind his back despite Royster’s request that Officer [691]*691Nichols cuff him in the front because of an old back and shoulder injury. Royster alleges that he was injured as a result of the handcuffing, meaning that he has a viable claim for excessive force against Officer Nichols.
“All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force, whether deadly or not, in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard.” Nance v. Sammis, 586 F.3d 604, 609-10 (8th Cir.2009). “Not every push or shove violates the Fourth Amendment, but force is excessive when the officers’ actions are not objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.” Rohrbough v. Hall, 586 F.3d 582, 585 (8th Cir.2009) (quotations, alteration, and citation omitted). “The key question is whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Nance, 586 F.3d at 610 (quotations and citation omitted). “Objective reasonableness depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Rohrbough, 586 F.3d at 586 (quotations and citations omitted).
“A de minimis use of force is insufficient to support a claim, and it may well be that most plaintiffs showing only de minimis injury can show only a corresponding de minimis use of force.” Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 906 (8th Cir.2011) (internal citation omitted). “The degree of injury is certainly relevant insofar as it tends to show the amount and type of force used.” Id. However, the possibility exists for a plaintiff “to prove an excessive use oí force that caused only a minor injury.” Id.
“The degree of injury should not be dispositive, because the nature of the force applied cannot be correlated perfectly with the type of injury inflicted.” Id. This is because some people are “thicker-skinned than others, and the same application of force will have different effects on different people.” Id. Therefore, “[t]he rule ... focus[es] ... on whether the force applied is reasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time the force is used.” Id. In Wilkins v. Gaddy, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178, 175 L.Ed.2d 995 (2010), the Supreme Court “reinforcefd] two propositions that are relevant [to an excessive-force claim under the Fourth Amendment]: ‘The extent of the injury may ... provide some indication of the amount of force applied,’ but ‘[i]njury and force ... are only imperfectly correlated.’ ” Id. at 906 n. 3 (quoting Wilkins, 130 S.Ct. at 1178) (third, fourth, and fifth alterations in original).
Here, KCPD policy provides that an officer should “[m]ake every attempt to place handcuffs behind the arrest[ee]’s back.” “[H]andcuffing [of an arrestee’s] hands behind his back [is] a routine police procedure.” Dunn v. Denk, 79 F.3d 401, 403 (5th Cir.1996). “Standard police practice called for cuffing an arrestee’s hands behind [his] back and [Officer Nichols’s] decision not to deviate from this practice was a judgment call, pure and simple.” Calvi v. Knox Cnty., 470 F.3d 422, 428 (1st Cir.2006). “Although ... handcuffing a suspect behind the back in the face of a severe and obvious medical injury [may] constitute[] excessive force, the evidence does not support the assertion that [Royster’s] arm injury was obvious.” Blosser v. Gilbert, 422 FedAppx. 453, 459 (6th [692]*692Cir.2011) (unpublished) (quotation and internal citation omitted). Nor has Royster presented evidence “that his injury was visible.” Id. Instead, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Royster, he only informed Officer Nichols that he had a preexisting injury.
Therefore, based on our review of the record, “[t]he aggravation of [Royster’s] old injury was not attributable to the excessive component of the force used. Rather the aggravation of [Royster’s] old shoulder injury was claimed to have been caused by handcuffing his hands behind his back, a routine police procedure.” Dunn, 79 F.3d at 403 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Officer Nichols on Royster’s excessive-force claim.
3. State-law Claims
Royster brought three state-law claims against Officer Nichols: (1) unlawful imprisonment, (2) negligence resulting in wrongful arrest, and (3) malicious prosecution. On appeal, Royster argues that “[b]ecause there is evidence that [Officer] Niehols’[s] arrest of Royster was without probable cause, all of the state[-]law claims are viable against [Officer Nichols].”
We hold that all of these claims fail as a matter of law because Officer Nichols had probable cause to arrest Royster. See Gibbs v. Blockbuster, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 157, 170 (Mo.Ct.App.2010) (“[N]o action for false imprisonment may be maintained for an arrest which is lawful, no matter at whose instigation nor for what motive the arrest was made. If the arrest of the plaintiff was lawful, an action for false arrest will not lie, and it can make no difference at whose instigation it was made or what the motive was. This must be so in reason, for there can be no trespass where the arrest is by warrant of law.” (quotations and internal citations omitted) (emphases added)); Bramon v. U-Haul, Inc., 945 S.W.2d 676 (Mo.Ct.App.1997) (explaining that because “[n]egligent causation of arrest claims are not intentional torts,” the plaintiff must prove, inter alia, “negligent discharge [of the] duty [of care]” (quotation and citation omitted)); Sanders v. Daniel Int’l Corp., 682 S.W.2d 803, 807 (Mo.1984) (en banc) (“A person suing on a theory of malicious prosecution must plead and prove ... the want of probable cause for the prosecution.... ”).
B. Plaza Security and the Board
Royster argues that Plaza Security and the Board are vicariously liable for Officer Nichols’s unlawful seizure and detention of his person and liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to train and supervise.
Even assuming that Plaza Security is a state actor for § 1983 purposes, we hold that Royster’s claims against Plaza Security and the Board fail as a matter of law. First, “respondeat superior is inapplicable to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Bell v. Kan. City Police Dep’t, 635 F.3d 346, 347 (8th Cir.2011) (per curiam). Second, we have already determined that Officer Nichols’s did not violate Royster’s constitutional rights; therefore, Royster’s “failure to train and failure to supervise claims ... [can]not be sustained absent an underlying constitutional violation by the officer.” Sitzes v. City of W. Memphis Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 470-71 (8th Cir.2010) (citing City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986) (per curiam); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (“Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.”); Sanders v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 474 F.3d 523, 527 (8th Cir.2007) (“Without a constitution[693]*693al violation by the individual officers, there can be no § 1983 or Monell failure to train municipal liability.”)).12
C. Kona Grill and Rosenkoetter
In Count I, Royster alleged that Officer Nichols and Rosenkoetter “knew or should have known that they had no probable cause to seize and arrest Royster, or to cause his arrest,” resulting in an “unconstitutional application of excessive force and ... an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” In Count IV, Royster claimed that Plaza Security had failed to train and supervise its employees. Finally, in Counts V, VI, and VII, Royster brought state-law claims against the Kona Grill and Rosenkoetter. Royster argues that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment to the Kona Grill and Rosenkoetter on all his § 1983 claims. According to Royster, “[bjecause there was a lack of probable cause for [his] arrest pursuant to [his] evidence, [the Kona Grill and Rosenkoetter] are subject to liability on all counts.” He also argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Kona Grill and Rosenkoetter on his state-law claims.
We hold that all of Royster’s claims against the Kona Grill and Rosenkoetter fail as a matter of law. First, assuming that Rosenkoetter and the Kona Grill acted under color of state law, we have already concluded that Officer Nichols did have probable cause to arrest Royster and that Officer Nichols’s use of force was not excessive, meaning that no violation of Royster’s constitutional rights occurred. See Part II.A.1. Second, assuming that the Kona Grill is a state actor for § 1983 purposes, Royster’s failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims against it fail because they “[can]not be sustained absent an underlying constitutional violation by the officer.” Sitzes, 606 F.3d at 470. Third, Royster’s state-law claims against Rosenkoetter and the Kona Grill fail because Officer Nichols had probable cause to arrest Royster. See Part II.A.3.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.