With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States” as a result of the officers’ alleged conspiracy. Farber v. City of Paterson, 440 F.3d 131, 134 (3d Cir.2006). As discussed previously, Mills suffered no injury to his constitutional rights. See Part II.A-B, supra. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment on Mills’s claims under § 1985(3). D. Finally, Mills seeks reversal of the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on his several pendent state law claims. Because Mills’s arrest was supported by probable cause, however, his claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution cannot survive under Pennsylvania law. See Renk v. City of Pittsburgh, 537 Pa. 68, 641 A.2d 289, 293 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Lippay v. Christos, 996 F.2d 1490, 1502 (3d

A: recognizing that an arrest based on probable cause cannot be the basis of a claim for false arrestimprisonment
B: holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause
C: holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest
D: holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause
A.