Did the panel err - in the summary judgment context in determining as a matter of law, on the basis of no articulated evidence or authority, that the signs posted by Respondent were too "inexact" and "nebulous" in meaning to constitute municipal policy for § 1983 "episodic act or omission" purposes, rather than treating the interpretation of such self-identified ambiguities as a question of fact, where the non-movant supplied ample evidence establishing that such signs constituted clear official approval of detainee mistreatment?

Did the panel err in determining that the signs posted by Respondent were too 'inexact' and 'nebulous' in meaning to constitute municipal policy for § 1983 'episodic act or omission' purposes, rather than treating the interpretation of such self-identified ambiguities as a question of fact