rights based on the conduct of Sheriff Duncan. However, a county may only be held liable for acts for which the county has final policymaking authority. See City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988). Whether a county or county official has final policymaking authority in a specific area is a question of state law. Id. “In North Carolina, the Office of Sheriff is a legal entity, established by the state constitution and state statutes, separate and distinct from the Board of County Commissioners because a sheriff is elected by the people, not employed by the county.” Little v. Smith, 114 F.Supp.2d 437, 446 (W.D.N.C.2000) (Horn, J.) (citing N.C. Gen.Stat. § 162-1); see also Boyd v. Robeson Cnty., 169 N.C.App. 460, 466, 621 S.E.2d 1 (2005) (<HOLDING>). It is the sheriff and not the county that has
holding that acts by a sheriff which gave rise to the plaintiffs claim against him were taken in the execution of his duties as sheriff and thus the sheriff was immune under  14 from an action seeking damages against him in his individual capacity holding that under north carolina law a sheriff is an agent of the office of the sheriff and an officialcapacity suit against him is a suit against that office holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that the constitutional qualifications for the office of sheriff were exclusive and the general assembly had no authority to impose additional qualifications as a prerequisite to holding the office of county sheriff