accepted by a majority of the board. As such, [that member] never possessed final policymak-ing power himself .... ”), and if the governing body lacks the power to reverse the member or employee’s decision, see Quinn v. Monroe Cty., 330 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir.2003) (“Because the [governmental entity] has the power to reverse any termination decision made by [individual government official], he is not a final policymaker with regard to termination decisions at the library.”). To determine if someone is a final policy maker, we look not only to “state and local positive law,” but also “custom and usage having the force of law.” McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir.1996); see also Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 2723, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989) (<HOLDING>). We review de novo a district court’s ruling
holding that a single decision by a final policymaker within the area of his responsibility can impose liability on the responsible governmental entity holding that an individual can be a final policymaker either by operation of state and local positive law or by custom or usage having the force of law holding that sources of state law identifying a final policymaker include not only positive state law but also custom or usage having the force oflaw holding that illegal state regulation can be accomplished either by an award of damages or by legislative enactment holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law