Opinion ID: 2972440
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim

Text: A municipality may be liable for a constitutional violation caused by individuals when those individuals acted pursuant to an official policy of the municipality. See Monnell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 426 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). For municipal liability to exist, however, a constitutional violation must take place. City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986); Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 687 (6th Cir. 2001) (“If no constitutional violation by the individual defendants is established, the municipal defendants cannot be held liable under § 1983.”) Because we have determined that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims for want of a constitutional violation, Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim must also fail. Additionally, Plaintiff never identified an official policy of the Village under which the individual Defendants are supposed to have acted. Absent such a policy, Plaintiff’s claim fails. Summary judgment for the Village of Timberlake is appropriate on this claim. No. 04-3252 Voyticky v. Village of Timberlake, Ohio, et al. Page 8