Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): sued in their individual capacities. See Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 650, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980); Monell v. Dep’t of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Leach v. Shelby County Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1245 (6th Cir.1989). That is to say, the liability of counties and other local governments under § 1983 depends solely on whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights have been violated as a result of a “policy” or “custom” attributable to the county or local government. Nevertheless, the district court reached the correct result in awarding summary judgment to Clermont County, as we shall explain below. Therefore we shall affirm its judgment, although on other grounds. See Andrews v. Ohio, 104 F.3d 803, 808 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Clermont County could only be held liable if 
 Holding statements: (A) holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds (B) recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court (C) recognizing that this court may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record quotation omitted (D) holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court (E) recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record
Output (English): recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court