BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Matthew Ruth, a police officer, and the City of Cleveland, Tennessee, bring this interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Eunice M. Spears, mother of the deceased, responds individually and as representative of the estate of Christopher McCargo. Christie McCargo, the daughter of the deceased, Clay McCargo and Madeline McCargo, relatives of the deceased, respond individually. Officer Ruth claims that the district court erred in denying his request for summary judgment and that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because plaintiffs have not shown that Officer Ruth was “deliberately indifferent” to Chrisopher McCargo’s serious illness or injury while McCargo was in Officer Ruth’s care. “Deliberate indifference” is required to establish a Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to provide medical assistance. The City of Cleveland claims that the district court erred in denying its request for summary judgment because plaintiffs have not shown that the city’s “no transport” policy caused a constitutional violation. This showing is necessary to establish a cause of action against a municipality under 28 USC § 1983.2 For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judgment to Officer Ruth and the City of Cleveland and REMAND for entry of judgment for the defendants.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. In this diversity action brought in the Eastern District of Michigan, plaintiff CMACO Automotive Systems, Inc. (“CMA”), a California corporation that supplies parts to automobile manufacturers, alleges that defendant Wanxiang America Corporation (“WAC”), a Kentucky corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, breached an exclusive partnership agreement to manufacture automotive parts for CMA. CMA’s complaint against WAC avers breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, and promissory estoppel.

WAC moved for summary judgment, arguing in pertinent part that CMA’s claims accrued in California and, by application of Michigan’s borrowing statute, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 600.5861, were time-barred by the relevant California statutes of limitation. The district court agreed and dismissed CMA’s action in its entirety. The court later denied CMA’s motion for reconsideration.

CMA now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on its breach of contract and related equitable claims for unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel. We conclude, however, that the district court did not err when it invoked Michigan’s borrowing statute and held that CMA’s causes of action were untimely filed under California law. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.