With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that professor did not have a property interest sufficient to trigger Fourteenth Amendment protection). Therefore, we hold Unger’s attempt to state a claim arising out of a property interest in the pursuit and continuance of her graduate medical education fails as a matter of law. 2. In her complaint, Unger also states that her participation in the Matching Program resulted in a contract between her and Temple. Thus, we must also decide whether Unger’s contract with Temple constitutes a property interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Today it is beyond dispute that a contract with a state entity can give rise to a property right protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Perry v. Sinder-mann, 408 U.S. 593, 599-601, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2698-2700, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has never

A: holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action
B: holding that a mississippi statute providing that employees could be terminated only for cause establishes a property interest under the fourteenth amendment
C: holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action
D: holding that contract of employment providing that professor could be terminated only for cause constituted property right protected by fourteenth amendment
D.