weapons. Rather, the critical factors are that Miller gave varying accounts as to how he lost his weapon and failed to report the loss in a timely manner. As opposed to Miller, the two white officers did not give conflicting versions about the loss of their weapons. Because Miller cannot demonstrate that nonmembers of the protected class who were similarly situated to him were treated more favorably, he cannot establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. See Blanding v. Pennsylvania State Police, 12 F.3d 1303, 1309 (3d Cir.1993) (affirming district court’s finding that white officers who were not probationary employees were not similarly situated to black probationary employee even though all had been involved in incidents of domestic violence); Allen, 128 F.Supp.2d, at 494 (<HOLDING>). b. Retaliation Claim After Miller’s
holding that a white office was not similarly situated to a black officer who was charged with more offenses than the white officer holding that a white male is not in a protected class for purposes of his discrimination claim because a white male is not  a member of an historically favored group  holding that black residents failed to state an equal protection claim where they did not allege the existence of a similarly situated group of white residents who were treated differently holding that the white defendants association with a black defendant was not sufficient to give them standing to join in the black defendants batson challenge holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated