to all of the Generic Manufacturers. In order for this theory to work, we would have to interpret the complaint as alleging: (1) the plaintiff ingested every single generic version of propoxyphene available, (2) every single generic version of propoxyphene contributed to the plaintiffs injuries, and (3) points (1) and (2) are true with respect to each of the plaintiffs in this case. Common sense suggests that Plaintiffs never meant to allege this scenario. Beyond the complaints’ failure to identify the responsible defendant, it falls short for another reason. Under Iqbal, “eonclu-sory statements” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” do not insulate a complaint from a motion to dis ll Atlantic conspired with its competitors, see 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (<HOLDING>). For these reasons we affirm the district
holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 holding ban violated the sherman act holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act holding that a plaintiff may state a claim under the sherman act for a defendants enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the pto where the plaintiff alleges deliberate fraud and the other elements of a monopolization claim under section 2 of the sherman act