of respondeat superior. Braddy v. Florida Dep’t of Labor and Employment Sec., 133 F.3d 797, 801 (11th Cir.1998). In some situations, the requisite casual connection may be established by alleging, and supervisors may be held liable for, failure to train and supervise their subordinates adequately. Dolihite v. Maughon, 74 F.3d 1027, 1052 (11th Cir.1996). Furthermore, “[t]he causal connection can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the deprivation, and he fails to do so.” Id. (quoting Cross v. State of Alabama Dep’t of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 49 F.3d 1490, 1508 (11th Cir.1995)); see also Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 837 n. 18 (11th Cir.1990); Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir.1990)(<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 933, 111 S.Ct. 2056,
holding that causal connection can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation and he fails to do so holding that a history of substance abuse is only a mitigating factor when a causal connection exists between the alcohol and drug abuse and the crime holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint holding that liability under  1983 can be established by showing that the defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiffs rights or caused such a deprivation to occur holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury