With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the Cnty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty., Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 406, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 . Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 . City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989); Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, Tex., 588 F.3d 838, 850 (5th Cir.2009). 9 . Conner v. Travis Cnty., 209 F.3d 794, 796 (5th Cir.2000) (per curiam); see also Peterson, 588 F.3d at 850; Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336 F.3d 363, 370 (5th Cir.2003). 10 . Connick v. Thompson, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 1359, 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011). 11 . Sanders-Burns v. City of Plano, 594 F.3d 366, 381-82 (5th Cir.2010). 12 . See Burge, 336 F.3d at 372 (<HOLDING>). 13 . Conner, 209 F.3d at 796. 14 . City of

A: holding that the plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to establish deliberate indifference in a failuretotrain claim in part because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the training received was inadequate or evidence of any specific additional training that the employees should have received
B: holding that allegations that training was inadequate  the inadequate training constituted deliberate indifference  and the risk of constitutional injury as a result of such deliberate indifference  is very obvious were a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action and were mere conclusions that did not without additional facts state a claim for failuretotrain liability
C: holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement
D: holding evidence of single incident without any proof relating to the nature of the training itself insufficient to establish inadequate training because plaintiffs must put forward some evidence that the city itself has acted or consciously not acted
A.