that [Fleming] was being held in confinement illegally”; “had a duty to insure that [Fleming] was not held in jail after his sentence was suspended[ ] and ... failed to perform that duty”; “have a practice of recklessly detaining people unlawfully and unconstitutionally, including failing to release people in a timely manner”; “failed properly to train and supervise ... officers and employees to insure that persons in custody are not detained unlawfully and unconstitutionally and are released in a timely manner”; and “failed to promulgate and implement proper policies to prevent” such unlawful detention. These allegations are just as “broad and ... conelusional” as those deemed insufficient to negate an assertion of qualified immunity in Wicks. 41 F.Sd at 995-96; see also id. at 996 (<HOLDING>). As the Wicks court explained, “[t]o merely
holding that an employees unsubstantiated testimony that he was better qualified than employees that were not subject to adverse employment actions was insufficient to defeat summary judgment holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case holding that an employers decision to terminate and individuals employment based on race is a violation of title vii regardless of whether that person is white or black holding that custody decision based on race is not justified holding allegations of race discrimination insufficiently specific to overcome assertion of qualified immunity where plaintiff alleged that employer customarily and habitually treated black employees in a less favorable fashion than white employees and her adverse comments about plaintiff based upon race and based upon plaintiffs protesting unjustified employment actions against him was  a proximate cause of an adverse employment decision