Opinion ID: 2979210
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Metro’s liability

Text: Totman argues that Metro failed to exercise ordinary care in hiring, supervising, and retaining officers “such as” Officer Hornback. He provides a substantive argument, however, concerning only Metro’s decision to retain Officer Hornback. Totman’s arguments about other officers, about Metro’s decision to hire Officer Hornback, and about Metro’s purported failure to supervise Officer Hornback are therefore deemed waived. See Spirko v. Mitchell, 368 F.3d 603, 612 (6th Cir. 2004) (“It is a settled appellate rule that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). -20- No. 09-5764 Totman v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Gov’t et al. Where a plaintiff seeks to hold a municipality liable for negligently retaining a particular employee, the plaintiff must prove that the decision to retain the employee “reflects deliberate indifference to the risk that a violation of a particular constitutional or statutory right will follow the decision.” Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 411 (1997). A finding of culpability cannot depend on the general probability that any officer inadequately screened will inflict some injury. “Rather, it must depend on a finding that this officer was highly likely to inflict the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff.” Id. at 412 (emphases in original). And “[w]here, as here, a municipality’s liability is alleged on the basis of the unconstitutional actions of its employee[], it is necessary to show that the employee[] inflicted a constitutional harm.” Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492, 516 (6th Cir. 2002). Totman’s negligent-retention claim against Metro is premised on his claim that Officer Hornback violated Totman’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force. But we have concluded that Totman failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Officer Hornback used excessive force against him. Because Totman’s claim against Hornback fails, he has not established a constitutional violation on which to base a claim of municipal liability. Totman’s claim against Metro is accordingly without merit. See id.