of an illegal official policy or legislative enactment; (2) that an official with final decision making authority ratified illegal actions; (3) the existence of a policy of inadequate training or supervision; or (4) the existence of a custom of tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations. Burgess, 735 F.3d at 478 (citing Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir.2005)). As indicated in the preceding section, “[a] municipality ‘may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.’ ” Id. (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018). The requirements for a valid § 1983 claim against a municipality apply equally to private corporations that are deemed state actors for purposes of § 1983. See Street, 102 F.3d at 817-18 (<HOLDING>); Starcher v. Corr. Med. Sys., Inc., 7
holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc  1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities recognizing a cause of action against a corporations directors brought by a creditor for the fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporations financial condition recognizing private right of action recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations recognizing that monel s holding has been extended to private corporations