or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.” To maintain an action under section 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege, with particularity, overt acts of the defendants, Powell v. Workmen’s Compensation Board, 327 F.2d 131, 137 (2d Cir.1964), and the allegations must indicate “some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971); see also United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 838-39, 103 S.Ct. 3352, 3360-61, 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983). This requirement has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases and most recently, in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, et al., — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993) (<HOLDING>). For reasons stated above, we have already
holding that absent evidence to the contrary court proceedings are presumed to be procedurally proper holding that hearsay statement did not constitute competent evidence and thus could not be considered in opposition to motion for summary judgment holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that a party could not use an opposition motion as a means of amending the complaint holding that opposition to abortion could not be presumed to reflect sexbased intent