simply identify conduct properly attributable to the municipality. Id. Rather, it must be shown that “through its deliberate conduct, the municipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged. That is, a plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.” Id. Proof that a municipality’s “authorized decisionmaker has intentionally depr 8-1446, 181 F.3d 79, 1998 WL 1085684, *1 (1st Cir.1998) (citing Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 481, 106 S.Ct. 1292 for the proposition that a single decision by a final decision-maker may give rise to municipal liability) (unpublished opinion); Roma Constr. Co. v. aRusso, 96 F.3d 566, 576 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Harrington v. Almy, 977
holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances holding that a policy for purposes of municipal liability may be established by an officials single decision holding that an agreement may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence holding that an unconstitutional policy may be inferred from an officials single decision or act