This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
36
Defendants were on the scene of Plaintiff‘s arrest. Plaintiff
therefore fails to state a viable direct, or bystan der § 1983
claim, against any of the City Defendants. Similar ly, Plaintiff
fails to state a § 1983 claim against the City Defe ndants on the
theory of ―supervisory liability.‖ Pursuant to such theory,
―when on notice of a subordinate‘ s tendency to act outside the
law, [supervisors are obligated] to take steps to p revent such
activity.‖ Randall, 302 F.3d at 203. Here, Plaintiff fails to
allege any facts whatsoever indicating that Briggs had a
―tendency to act outside the law.‖
Notwithstanding Plaintiff‘s failure to state a dire ct,
bystander liability, or supervisory liability § 198 3 claim
against the City Defendants, a municipality is ―subject to
liability under section 1983 if the [plaintiff‘s] alleged injury
was caused by an identifiable municipal policy or c ustom.‖
Riddick v. School Bd. of City of Portsmouth, 238 F. 3d 518, 522
(4th Cir. 2000). A policy or custom can be establi shed through:
(1) ― an express policy ‖; (2) a decision by ―a person with final
policymaking authority ‖; (3) an omission, ― such as a failure to
properly train officers‖; and (4) a practice so widespread that
it constitutes a custom. Lytle v. Doyle, 326 F.3d 463, 471 (4th
Cir. 2003).
Although there are several ways to establish the ex istence
of a policy or custom, a plaintiff seeking to attri bute Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)