With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is, indeed, the entity the Perez family sued in the instant matter, we conclude that it is entitled to immunity from suit. Alternatively, we conclude the Perez family improperly named the municipality of Columbia County as a defendant in this lawsuit, since the municipality took no actions in the allegedly unconstitutional entry underlying the instant matter. The Perez family appears to dispute that the municipality of Columbia County had no involvement in the March 21, 2007 entry into their home, arguing that Panetta worked for and was an agent of Columbia County, which had an unconstitutional policy of executing bench warrants in the middle of the night. Therefore, they claim, the county is liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services. See 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (<HOLDING>). The Perez family presents testimony that “the

A: holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under  1983 through official policy or custom
B: holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities in actions brought pursuant to 42 usc  1983
C: holding that although municipalities are persons within the meaning of 42 usc  1983 no municipal liability lies under that statute unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort
D: holding that municipal liability for purposes of claims brought under 42 usc  1983 must stem from an unconstitutional policy or custom rather than simply from respondeat superior
C.