speech. Smith v. Mosley, 532 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir.2008). Yet “an inmate’s First Amendment right to free speech is not protected if affording protection would be inconsistent with the inmate’s status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.” Id. at 1277. “[I]f a prisoner violates a legitimate prison regulation, he is not engaged in protected conduct, and cannot proceed beyond step one.” Id. (quotations omitted). Because Moulds made only a bare assertion of a conspiracy to retaliate against him, without alleging any other details or providing any supporting evidence of such a conspiracy, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on his conspiracy claim. See Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 557 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). To the extent Moulds claims that the search
holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges holding that complaint alleging a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights cannot survive motion to dismiss based on conclusory allegations of conspiracy which are not supported by references to material facts holding that a conspiracy to violate section 1959 is not the same offense as a conspiracy to violate section 1962 holding that a person alleging a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights must do more than simply aver that a conspiracy existed holding that two conspiracies existed where the members of the second conspiracy did not know about the first conspiracy did not benefit from the first conspiracy and were connected with the first conspiracy only through a middleman