Opinion ID: 177072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Daniel's Claims Against the District

Text: To the extent Appellants maintain their claims under § 1983 asserting constitutional violations against the District on appeal, they have failed to address the district court's rationale that any alleged violation of Daniel's rights did not occur pursuant to a policy or custom established by the District. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. We find the district court's reasoning on this point to be persuasive. Appellants have thus waived any appeal from the district court's decision dismissing the claims against the District on that basis. See Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998) (Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.). Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that the District has in place any policy or custom that would have subverted Daniel's constitutional rights.