Grocery, 843 F.2d 298, 301 (8th Cir.1988)). Bogren presents no evidence that any of the probationary officers ever received a comparable criminal citation nor that concerns over their accountability, driving performance or tendency to prevaricate were raised during their probationary period. Nor does she show that they were involved in motor vehicle accidents while on patrol. Rather, the record reflects only that two probationary troopers received a single citizen complaint, both of which were investigated and found to be unsustained, and a third received two citizen complaints. Moreover, Bogren has not shown that the supervisor or supervisors responsible for her termination were also involved in the disciplinary action, or lack thereof, of the white male probationary officers. See id. (<HOLDING>). • Bogren advances other arguments in support
recognizing the potential for discrimination by local officials among similarly situated property owners who are underrepresented in the general population recognizing that act and wetlands regulations are generally applicable to all similarly situated property owners and cannot be viewed as being directed solely at the plaintiffs holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding that michigans lawyer disciplinary proceedings do not violate due process because the functions of investigation prosecution adjudication and review are functionally separate and are handled by different individuals recognizing that individuals are generally not similarly situated when different decision makers are involved in the respective disciplinary action