of Lakewood, 699 F.2d 303, 308 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 815, 104 S.Ct. 72, 78 L.Ed.2d 85 (1983); Stratford, 542 F.Supp. at 1014). See also Harris v. City of Akron, 20 F.3d 1396, 1405 (6th. Cir.) (“This court has recognized two types of substantive due process violations: (1) official acts that are unreasonable and arbitrary and ‘may not take place no matter what procedural protections accompany them,’ and (2) official conduct that ‘shocks the conscience.’ ”) (quoting Wilson v. Beebe, 770 F.2d 578, 586 (6th Cir.1985) (en banc)), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 512, 130 L.Ed.2d 419 (1994). According to Curto, 954 F.2d at 1243, under this category of substantive due process analysis, “an ordinance or regulation is invalid if it fails to advance a legi , 1350-51 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Holthaus v. Board of Educ., Cincinnati Pub.
holding that plaintiff state employees contract right to be discharged only for cause was not protected by due process clause because it did not rise to level of fundamental right holding that an infringement on the defendants fundamental due process right in the form of a comment on the defendants silence by the prosecution did not rise to level of plain error holding that plaintiff state employees contractual right to promotion was not protected by constitutional guarantee of substantive due process because right was not fundamental holding right to be fundamental holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right