Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Mylett’s claims against three police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of due process and § 1985 for conspiracy need not long detain us. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Mylett failed to assert a cognizable class-based animus to support a claim under section 1985 and failed to establish an enforceable property interest as against these defendants. The judgment of the district court is, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 1 . The charges stemmed from Mylett's supposed refusal to pay for belt buckles. 2 . Mylett objected to the form of the submission because it required the jury to determine whether some part of his speech was protected before it could answer the question related to causation. See Wilson v. University of Texas Health Center, 973 F.2d 1263 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied sub nom. Hurst v. Wilson, — U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that question whether employee speech is protected and concomitant determination whether it touches a matter of public concern are for the court and to be answered with reference to the form context and content of the claimed speech as revealed by the record as a whole (B) holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern (C) recognizing the need to balance the states interest in fulfilling its responsibilities to the public the extent to which the speech in question involves a matter of public concern and the manner time place and context of the speech (D) holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation (E) holding a regulation is contentneutral as long as it is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech
Output (English): holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation