official with final poli-cymaking authority. See Vineyard v. County of Murray, 990 F.2d 1207, 1212 (11th Cir.1993); Floyd v. Waiters, 133 F.3d 786, 795-96 (11th Cir.1998) A claim concerning an isolated incident is generally insufficient to sustain a claim for failure to train because those officials who are responsible for creating a policy must be on notice of the constitutional deficiencies. In Wright v. Sheppard, 919 F.2d 665 (11th Cir.1990), the Eleventh Circuit held a sheriffs department could not be liable for the actions of a deputy unless there was evidence “of a history of widespread prior abuse” such that the sheriff was “on notice of the need for improved training or supervision.” 919 F.2d at 674. See also Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342-46 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Popham v. City of Talladega, 908 F.2d 1561,
holding that proof of scienter is required to succeed on a claim under  1991a1 but not under  1991a2 or  1991a3 holding plaintiffs claims could not succeed without proof that the city had knowledge of prior incidents holding that 8 incidents of assault theft robbery or burglary on the premises and 80 similar incidents within a 2bloek area within the prior 3 years did not constitute special circumstances giving rise to a duty to protect holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law holding that claims against a city police chief in his official capacity were really claims against the city