and/or intentional misconduct of the officers in the improper operation of the jail facilities. (Amended Compl. ¶27.) Where a plaintiff does not allege that a defendant personally participated in alleged constitutional deprivations, the plaintiff must establish an affirmative causal connection between the act or omission complained of and the alleged constitutional deprivations in order to sustain a § 1983 cause of action against the defendant. Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir.1995). See also Bailey v. Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County, 956 F.2d 1112, 1124 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 832, 113 S.Ct. 98, 121 L.Ed.2d 58 (1992). Thus, for Defendant Counts, as Sheriff and supervisor of the Coffee County Jail, to be liable for the C 1557 (11th Cir.1989)(<HOLDING>). In its August 19, 1997 Order denying
holding the chief of police was an atwill employee because the parties agreed that the chief of police was an appointed officer and the citys charter stated that officers shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor with consent of the council holding statute requiring parties in tax suit to take notice of subsequent pleadings was not unconstitutional when city failed to take such notice holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment holding that supervisory liability might exist where police chief was on notice that canine unit was operating in unacceptable manner but failed to take remedial action holding that chief of police was entitled to immunity for demoting police officer pending appeal of hearing officers decision to contrary because although statute made hearing officers decision final and binding statute nowhere addressed enforceability of decision pending appeal thus chief of polices action was discretionary