a liberty or property interest in admission to Temple’s dermatology program. In addition, she had to establish that the deprivation of any liberty or property interest occurred without due process. Our review of her complaint has led us to conclude that Unger has failed to allege a property or liberty interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, we will affirm the district court’s order dismissing Unger’s constitutional claim with prejudice and dismissing her pendent state law claims without prejudice. 1 . Temple is a state actor because it enjoys a " ‘symbiotic relationship’ with the Commonwealth [of Pennsylvania].” Molthan v. Temple University, 778 F.2d 955, 960 (3d Cir.1985); see also Braden v. University of Pittsburgh, 552 F.2d 948, 955-65 (3d Cir.1977) (in banc) (<HOLDING>). It does not contest that status. 2 . As a
holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding state university is not a person under  1983 holding that the university of colorado is an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding that the university of maryland law school was a state agency holding that the university of pittsburgh which is also a member of the commonwealth system of higher education is a state actor