to state action, see, e.g., Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350, 95 S.Ct. 449, 42 L.E.2d 477 (1974) (a heavily regulated utility company was not a state actor).” Crissman v. Dover Downs Entm’t Inc., 289 F.3d 231, 243 (3d Cir.2002). “The Supreme Court has stated with equal force that the flow of funds does not implicate the state in private activity.” Id. Even in combination, licensing, regulation, and state funding do not establish state action where “the combination brings no greater result....” Id. at 244-45. Rather, state action requires a “close nexus” between the state and the conduct at issue. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) (citing Jackson, 419 U.S. at 358-59, 95 S.Ct. 449); Leshko v. Servis, 423 F.3d 337, 341 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). A “close nexus” exists where the government
holding that to prevail on a  1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action holding that there was no state action where the decisions to discharge the petitioners were not compelled or even influenced by any state regulation holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983 holding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim for a breach of a joint venture agreement where it failed to allege  responsibility for losses holding that the plaintiff states no claim of state action on the basis of state regulation and funding where the plaintiff failed to allege that pennsylvania forced or encouraged or jointly participated in the conduct complained of