Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officer’s and City’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that she was unlawfully arrested and prosecuted on intimidation charges stemming from incident, during which plaintiff yelled “bald motherf**ker” at defendant-officer while others were attempting to arrest known gang members, as well as wrote Facebook posts that officer believed were threatening to his children and his family. Record showed that officer made his complaint against plaintiff in his role as private citizen who was witness in plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution, and thus there was no evidence to support plaintiff’s claim that officer was acting under “color of law” necessary to support her section 1983 claim. Moreover, plaintiff waived her argument that City failed to adequately train and supervise its officers to deal with citizens using profanity in their presence, where plaintiff failed to raise said argument with Dist. Ct., and plaintiff otherwise failed to present evidence to support said argument.