prosecutions cannot be considered extreme and outrages or beyond the bounds of decency. Accordingly, those claims are dismissed. To the extent Plaintiffs claim that the alleged withholding of the videotape constitutes a violation of the rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), no such claim can be maintained as the Plaintiffs were made aware of the videotape prior to their trial and have made no argument or showing that any delay in its disclosure caused prejudice. United States v. Watson, 76 F.3d 4, 8 (1st Cir.1996). Finally, since Plaintiffs have not set forth evidence establishing the alleged underlying constitutional violations, their municipal liability claims likewise fail. Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). The Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
holding that individual liability under  1983 must be based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation holding that a claim for municipal liability under  1983 requires inter alia proof of an underlying constitutional violation holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under  1983 through official policy or custom holding that a city may not be held liable under  1983 where there was no underlying constitutional violation by any of its officers holding that a constitutional violation by a subordinate is a predicate for supervisory liability under  1983