can be established in a number of ways: the plaintiff may point to an express municipal policy responsible for the alleged constitutional injury, or demonstrate that there is a practice that is so widespread that it rises to the level of a custom that can fairly be attributed to the municipality. Estate of Sims v. Cnty. of Bureau, 506 F.3d 509, 515 (7th Cir.2007). The plaintiff may also assert that the individual who committed the constitutional deprivation was an official with policy-making authority. Id. Without establishing that a custom or policy of the County was a cause of John King’s injury, Plaintiff-Appellant cannot succeed in her claim of Monell liability against the County. lenco, 286 F.3d at 1001; see also Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, 751 F.3d 542, 549 (7th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). And, obviously, the question of whether there
holding that a municipality may only be held liable under  1983 for a policy practice or custom 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 holding that a plaintiff must identify a municipal policy custom or practice  to support a claim against a municipality under monell 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 holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under  1983 through official policy or custom