With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”). C. Municipal Liability Claim against Yorkville Defendants request that we exercise “pendent appellate jurisdiction” to dismiss the municipal liability issues. We do, because absent any constitutional violation, there can be no municipal liability. See Brennan v. Twp. of Northville, 78 F.3d 1152, 1158 (6th Cir.1996). Furthermore, even if there had been a constitutional violation, there was no custom or policy, because, in the first place, Prosecutor Thomas — not Anderson — made the decision to prosecute Kinkus. Yorkville cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court erred in

A: holding that county liability under  1983 cannot rest on a theory of respondeat superior
B: recognizing respondeat superior liability
C: holding that a party can be held liable for securities fraud on an agency or a respondeat superior theory
D: holding that a municipality cannot be liable on a respondeat superior theory
D.