
    Ricardo MEDRANO-ARZATE, Eva Chavez-Medrano, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hilda Medrando, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHERIFF OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, Paul C. May, individually, Okeechobee County, Florida, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-14170 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (June 29, 2017)
    Stephen F. Rosenthal, Podhurst Orseck, PA, Miami, FL, Michael Trent Lewenz, Edward H. Zebersky, Zebersky & Payne, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Bruce Wallace Jolly, Purdy Jolly Gi-uffreda & Barranco, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Sheriff of Okeechobee County
    John Matthew Belcastro, Robert Christopher Shearman, Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt, PA, Fort Myers, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Okeechobee County
    Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges:
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Ricardo Medrano-Arzate and Eva Chavez Medrano,, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hilda Medrano (Appellants), appeal the district court’s dismissal of their amended complaint against Paul C. May, individually and as Sheriff of Okeechobee County, and Okeechobee County (Appellees). The complaint arises out of the death of Hilda Medrano on December 1, 2013, when the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a vehicle driven by Deputy Joseph Anthony Gracie of the Okeechobee County Sheriffs Office. Appellants filed suit against May, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff, and Okeechobee County, but did not file suit against Deputy Gracie. Appellants alleged that certain policies implemented by the Appellees, pursuant to which Deputy Gracie was unable to operate his lights and sirens while responding to an emergency call, caused the collision and Hilda Medra-no’s death.

While we agree with the district court that Hilda Medrano’s death was tragic, we also agree that the Appellants have failed to state a claim against the Appellees under § 1983. As Appellants do not allege that Deputy Gracie’s conduct amounted to a deprivation of Hilda Medrano’s constitutional rights, Appellants cannot maintain an action against Appellees under § 1983 based upon the policies alleged to have caused Hilda Medrano’s death. Appellants concede their claim is foreclosed by Rooney v. Watson, 101 F.3d 1378, 1381 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inquiry into a governmental entity’s custom or policy is relevant only when a constitutional deprivation has occurred.”). Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal. See McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478, 482 (11th Cir. 1996) (reviewing de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure state a claim).

AFFIRMED.  