we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 . Fields also appears to assert in a statement attached to his complaint that he was terminated in retaliation for indicating that he wished to pursue criminal assault charges against Squitiere. SEPTA did not address this assertion in its summary judgment motion. To the extent Fields asserts a First Amendment retaliation claim, such a claim fails as a matter of law because Fields did not engage in constitutionally protected conduct. Fields states that he asked his foreman for a written report of the incident and he was told that if he pursued the matter further he would be fired. Fields does not state that he in fact pursued criminal charges against Squitiere. See Ambrose v. Township of Robinson, 303 F.3d 488, 493 (3d Cir.2002)
holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding first amendment claim requires actual protected conduct holding that first amendment principles preclude recovery under state law for damages caused by speech or other protected conduct holding that dating is a type of association protected by the first amendment holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment