interest.” Gustafson, 290 F.3d at 908 (quotations omitted); see also Metzger, 367 F.3d at 702; Kokkinis, 185 F.3d at 844. Deputy Schuh’s own testimony reinforces this conclusion. The undisputed facts, based on Schuh’s deposition, state the following: Schuh believed that Sheriff Clarke’s “inspirational message” was challenging his courage to perform his job; Schuh wrote his article to question Clarke’s courage in return; Schuh was responding to the quote on the roll-call board and intended to make a sarcastic comment about Clarke; and Schuh wrote the article to “throw back at him what he threw at us.” We can find no evidence in the record that supports plaintiffs’ contention that Deputy Schuh had anything but a personal motive for making his statement. Cf. Chaklos, 560 F.3d at 713-14 (<HOLDING>). Our case law supports our determination. The
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 holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation 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 holding that when a person reports cases of possible patient abuse that speech is a matter of public concern holding that speech addressing a private interest within a letter containing matters of public interest was protected and noting that we have emphasized that speech of public importance is only transformed into a matter of private concern when it is motivated solely by the speakers personal interests quotations omitted