With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the original recording. Those copies were then forwarded to the attorneys preparing for the Civil Service hearing. Moreover, while the record reveals that Fitzgerald directed Cahill to make the tape recording, there is absolutely nothing in the record that indicates that Fitzgerald requested that the tape be altered or supervised Cahill in making the tape. The record contains no evidence that Healy, Gardner, Ellis or Gelinas had anything to do with the tape or with supervising Cahill. Moreover, Cignetti’s allegation that Fitzgerald referred to him as a “complainer” and a “malcontent” is insufficient to support an inference that Fitzgerald authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the falsification of evidence. See Alioto v. City of Shively, 835 F.2d 1173, 1175 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the record contains no evidence

A: holding that supervisory liability under  1983 requires a showing that the supervisory official at least implicitly authorized or approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate
B: holding that a constitutional violation by a subordinate is a predicate for supervisory liability under  1983
C: holding that supervisory liability under  1983 must be based on active unconstitutional behavior and cannot be based upon a mere failure to act internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that iqbal eliminated supervisory liability previously permitted by colon in situations where the supervisor knew of and acquiesced to a constitutional violation committed by a subordinate
A.