With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a private practice, acting in his private capacity petitioned a state judge to modify a client’s original divorce decree and then, in his public capacity, caused a baseless criminal charge to be filed against his client’s former husband. Id. at 1271-72. In the instant case however, we have already concluded that there was probable cause or, at the very least, arguable probable cause to believe that plaintiff had engaged in criminal activity. Consequently, imbuing Char-bonneau with absolute immunity would not run counter to the policy reasons that support the doctrine. IV. Municipal Liability Because, as discussed above, plaintiffs constitutional rights were not violated, there can be no cognizable claim against the municipal defendants. See Dodd v. Norwich, 827 F.2d 1, 8 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106

A: holding that a plaintiff is required to identify specific acts of individual defendants  for his claim to survive
B: holding that a plaintiff in a bivens action must allege that the individual defendant was personally involved in the constitutional violation
C: holding that a constitutional violation by the individual defendants is required in order to sustain a claim against the municipality
D: holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for an official policy or custom if it has been determined that the individual defendants did not violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights
C.