purported right is, in reality, a claim of entitlement to a set of procedures that allow a fair opportunity for recertification. Recognition of a property right in the recertification procedures themselves would run afoul of the central distinction in due process jurisprudence between substantive rights and the procedures that must be followed in connection with the deprivation of those rights. The nature of the plaintiffs’ asserted property right requires some explication. The plaintiffs emphasize that they do not claim a property right directly in a continuous stream of benefits, which they concede would be a losing claim given the time-limited nature of the entitlement to Food Stamps. See Holman v. Block, 823 F.2d 56, 59 (4th Cir. 1987); Banks v. Block, 700 F.2d 292, 296 (6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 934, 104 S.Ct. 341, 78
holding a due process violation for lack of notice of the possible decrease in a food stamp allotment because notice did not meaningfully inform persons so they could protect their interest holding that applicants for welfare benefits had a property interest or legitimate claim of entitlement and were entitled to due process to protect that interest holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that a household receiving food stamp benefits has no protectable property interest in the continuous entitlement to food stamps beyond the expiration of its certification period holding single incident of food poisoning did not amount to a violation of prisoners constitutional rights