a plaintiff of a federally protected right” the Court held, “necessarily establishes that the municipality acted culpably. Similarly, the conclusion that the action taken by the ... authorized decisionmaker itself violates federal law will also determine that the municipal action was the moving force behind the injury of which the plaintiff complains.” Id. at 405, 117 S.Ct. 1382. Thus, Brown confirmed the notion that an official’s single act can provide the basis for municipal liability so long as that act violated federal law. Id. In accordance with these precedents, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has. recognized the proposition that an official’s single act can serve as a policy and thus establish a basis for municipal liability. Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Dickinson v. Chitwood, No.
holding that an unconstitutional policy may be inferred from an officials single decision or act holding that coconspirator liability for a  924c offense may be established under pinkerton liability holding that city managers single unconstitutional action was sufficient for the imposition of municipal liability holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under  1983 through official policy or custom holding that a policy for purposes of municipal liability may be established by an officials single decision