bound by the judgment. Further, the Remedial Defendants note that statutory law requires that an appropriate credit be given in the state retirement fund if Plaintiff were to be awarded back pay. Finally, the Remedial Defendants contend that the body of the Complaint does not set forth any causes of action against these Defendants, and, therefore, as personal involvement of a party is required under all of the statutes cited by Plaintiff, the Complaint must fail as against the Remedial Defendants. Plaintiff has asserted causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and the ADEA. Section § 1983 requires that a defendant have personal involvement in the alleged incident before liability will attach. See Al-Jundi v. Estate of Nelson Rockefeller, 885 F.2d 1060, 1065-66 (2d Cm. 1989) (<HOLDING>). A Title VII action may only be maintained
holding that a defendants personal involvement in an alleged deprivation of constitutional rights is a necessary element of a  1983 complaint recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing recognizing that deprivation of a right was a necessary predicate to  1983 conspiracy liability