allegations regarding the failure-to-supervise claim. According to Plaintiff, City Defendants “failed to supervise ... deputies in the appropriate constitutional limits on the use of force, knowing that these members of law enforcement therefore pose a significant risk of injury to the public,” Compl. ¶ 67, and “failed to properly ... supervise [their] officers in a manner amounting to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff,” Compl. ¶ 118. However, those allegations are conclusory, and insufficient, without more, to raise, beyond the speculative level, Plaintiffs right to relief on the failure-to-supervise claim because they are “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937; cf. Lee, 2013 WL 1155590, at *7 (<HOLDING>). None of Plaintiffs allegations present
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 sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs holding that disagreement with a doctors judgment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference holding that a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish 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