miss blue adequately gave statutory notice of her state law claims in accordance with d c code twelve three zero nine with respect to the municipal liability claim one of them is loose theories was that the district and she pled the district had a custom in adequately investigating the backgrounds of its teachers before hiring them she played a number of her facts in her complaint in support of this policy she cla that mr weiss miller was fired from two washington area school districts for previously sexually abusing students and that despite being fired for these incidents the district hired him and the district assigned him to teach very vulnerable students who may and diagnosed with emotional disturbance disability at the transition academy in chad the district court dismissed ms claims under the policy the complete feel to which the decision maker was a final policy maker set aside the question of identify the specific person there's a complaint and where th but there is no policy other than a decision of a final policy maker in this case but under the supreme court's precedent in primer and city of canton versus harris a single decision by i mean a simple policy maker can constitute a policy but the title my claim whether these are appropriate officials that can work that district are going to combine the districts with what had been going on previously is a question of fact but it's not certain that just because the investigative report itself was not published until weissman had been let go and no one knew about his conduct previous to that all of the interviews all the people that were interviewed said yes we didn't know if in fact that these this kind of had been going on for months some of the allegations in the complaint reference specific dates where the people interviewed said that they knew what was going on and some of those states are back months before the court was actually published finished a duty claim where she makes some of those allegations since right it is a state law claim but those allegations are incorporated in her in all of her causes of action but she does she didn't have the chandra levy that valid claim because she didn't allege that inappropriate official had knowledge of the relationship and didn't allege actual knowledge again we disagree because she alleged numerous officials numerous people within the school that knew of this relationship as it was occurring we don't know if other people were interviewed why didn't you know whether their statements were included in the reports that was eventually circulated to the district itself and we believe it's an issue of fact as to who district policies or practice practices may be in place with respect to hiring or you know in the identity of a final municipal policymaker the media made any of the decisions at issue here with respect to the one hundred eighty three  this is detailed investigative report was done fifty one pages long it was done within six months of when the school actually got her injuries occurred what was the investigative report that the district office of school security did our argument is that that gave the district actual notice of the claims that could be brought against him he wanted to do a full investigation which he didn't do that there for the purposes of the notice notice to actually have been fully satisfied additionally we argue that because the investigative report was done by the office of school system security which is staffed by metropolitan police department officers in part they could have satisfied the also saturday in many cases when you know what is the purpose of the statute the purpose of the search it is so that the district is able to investigate claims before suit can be bought or you counsel to her during the six month period just curious that the district had every opportunity to find out every fact that it wanted to with respect to these claims and i would note that this case in terms of the detail of the investigative report was much provided much more information than the things people typically try to final decision by final policy maker can become policy corrected i mean if you look at the streets of orange that my only question is a question please you agree with me that you did not a wage that in the compl would be probably a legal conclusion that at this point it doesn't seem that it would have made any difference whether we allies or we didn't go as if if if if if the fact that we could not obtain until discovery had been conducted can can come from the individual acts of the final policy maker so why isn't enough well because what we have here is just a single incident of the hiring of mr wise you know and was not allege that if you agree it i suppose suppose the person who made that decision was the final policy maker he would agree that would be sufficient when it would perhaps be i'm not sure that that it would necessarily be so but yes it could be but we as well i mean we did cite the jones versus warren case i would also point out too that we're not even at that stage one of the simply no allegation of the final policymaker made its decision in this case that's that's a very right but in order i mean even assuming there were an underlying constitutional violation and that's been adequately flat this is not suffice to establish for purposes of on a motion to dismiss a claim against them in this holiday because it is a r of the proceeding including on the twelve the six that that rigorous standard be taken into account and in your view in the alley what's your best argument that there's no underlying how he has no underlying constitutional violation well we did to get to there i think that this the district court did properly dismiss that because i mean this policy was not alleged i would point out there was no deficiency alleged in the background checks that d c public schools conducted  simply have it isn't this reality sees me i wasn't going to raise it until you just said that but isn't that kind of since there are in this fellow according to the complaint at least in two nearby school districts engaged in checks of teachers as well as and pass and placement checks reference checks that these are all required and they're you know it's just a policy that they block that they are required and there's no dispute that you know here on the complaint that that's not the to actual knowledge by an appropriate person appropriate person one being authorized to correct take corrective action in the form of bahrain or discipline in this of plenty in the employee and it is not alleged in this case that there was such an appropriate person who had such knowledge we also made the argument that the investigation itself shows no deliberate indifference the district did investigate there's no allegation of any particular deficiency in the investigation itself the process of investigating this would disprove any deliberate indifference fire the district there's nothing that was clearly unreasonable in the investigative response and then as far as  the only permissible substitute a written notice to the mayor is it police report in the regular course of duty ms blue did not argue below that this d c public schools investigative report was actually a police report and so that argument was forfeited and she didn't ask for discovery on whether to inquire even whether this was a police report that might satisfy the statute so again that argument has been forfeited as well and the report indicated in the district court understood the premise the basis for this conclusory allegation of a policy is simply the hiring of mr watson or in the facts related to his particular hiring doesn't extend beyond that that's all the district court understood  based on the arguments presented so i think that policies in place by d c when they set up schools for emotionally disturbed or affected students that the people who teach them have some sort of training or there's something in place to make sure that because they're being treated differently because of their emotional problems the people who are teaching them and taking care of them also have to be aware of extra caution and so forth this is a sad horrible thing that happened and it sounds like i mean even if it was just rumors that nobody did anything they just turned a blind eye what i'd done tonight all of us a very unfortunate incident it was contrary license i understand that there are particular certifications and licensing for special education students and it says that there is a policy that is required the background checks be performed on teachers and other types of about a d c policy but your theory is that policy came from the actions of an individual final policymaker correct correct turn in the facts so how does that without that the district of columbia has a custom policy or practice custom policy of practice of failing to adequately investigate backgrounds of its teachers right that's your allegation that is the allegation ok and your theory is that it's a motion to dismiss stage that's all you need to say and what you need is discovery to find out who that person was it isn't anything i mean something the u s district court for discovery on that none of the two killer issue i mean we didn't even get to that point i mean that the alleged that this was a decision made by final policy maker did you say well of course we did because we don't want to we don't want to make coos free allegations so we need some discovery we did in time that we came here dismissed because of the final policymaker issue it's always after summary judgment on the cases that i've discovered there has been discovery conducted on hand and that way if somebody can't prove that somebody