. Id. Andrade’s Declaration, ¶¶ 64-65, Exhibits 31-32. 131 .Although it appears that the City has also moved for summary judgment by arguing that Andrade cannot establish that the individual defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights by retaliating against him, that argument is incomplete. Docket no. 44, at 23. Thus, I decline to rule on it for purposes of summary judgment. Any civil conspiracy claims brought by Andrade against the individual defendants within the context of his First Amendment claim will be tried. 132 . Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 8 .1982), overruled on other grounds, International Woodworkers of America v. Champion International Corporation, 790 F.2d 1174, 1181 (5th Cir.1986). 158 . See Nobby Lobby, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 970 F.2d at 92-93, (<HOLDING>); Matthias v. Bingley, 906 F.2d at 1054,
holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity holding a city liable for the unconstitutional firing of two clerks by a municipal judge when it was clear the city had delegated to him final administrative authority over employment matters holding that the city could be held liable for the numerous seizures by municipal police of video and other equipment from adult video arcades over a period of two years where the police consulted with the city attorneys office which approved same before commencing the seizures and the seizures continued even after the city had requested a federal court to stay a lawsuit filed by arcade operators to permit the state courts to first address the state statute relied upon by the police for the seizures holding that a city manager was the final policymaker for purposes of section 1983 liability because of provisions in the norfolk city code requiring that all orders rules and regulations applicable to the entire police department must be approved by the city manager other than some police standard operating procedures