the incidents cited by the plaintiff were not “similar to the violation at issue” so as to “put [the defendant] on notice that specific training was necessary to avoid this constitutional violation.”). Here, Plaintiffs allegations concerning a pattern of constitutional violations are con- ' elusory, at best. Throughout the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to properly train their officers and that such failure showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional rights. See Compl. ¶¶ 67, 118. However, alone, those allegations are not sufficient to raise a plausible claim that the City “knew of, and acquiesced in, a pattern of constitutional violations,” Gallimore, 38 F.Supp.3d at 726, because such allegations are conclusory, see Lee, 2013 WL 1155590, at *7 (<HOLDING>). Importantly, Plaintiffs additional factual
holding that the plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to establish deliberate indifference in a failuretotrain claim in part because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the training received was inadequate or evidence of any specific additional training that the employees should have received holding that a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish deliberate indifference holding that disagreement with a doctors judgment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference holding that allegations that training was inadequate  the inadequate training constituted deliberate indifference  and the risk of constitutional injury as a result of such deliberate indifference  is very obvious were a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action and were mere conclusions that did not without additional facts state a claim for failuretotrain liability holding that a sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs