legitimate, non-dis-eriminatory reasons for Plaintiffs termination. Plaintiff has included some general statements regarding racial discrimination in the Amended Complaint. See ¶ 1, 10, 19, 28, 30. Of the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the most substantive allegations of racial discrimination are found in ¶ 28. Even this paragraph, however, consists of conclusory allegations of unlawful discrimination. There is an absolute dearth of specific facts which would support any inference that Defendant intentionally treated him the way he did because of his race. Construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to establish that Sands violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights. See Barts v. Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1190 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Because nothing on the face of Plaintiffs
holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim holding that a plaintiffs burden cannot be satisfied simply by making general conclusory allegations of some constitutional violation or by stating broad legal truisms holding party opposing summary judgment does not show genuine issue for trial by replacing conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit holding that burden of clear and convincing proof cannot be satisfied by mere conjecture or speculation holding that where petitioner did not point to any specific evidence that was withheld his broad conclusory claims  were insufficient to support his claim of a constitutional violation