procedure utilized by the Board, which, as discussed above, requires a hearing officer to provide recommendations to the Board, which, in turn, issues the final decision. Thus, Nixon does not require the application of subsection (a)(1) in this case. Just as the ALJ’s delay in the present case in issuing recommendations to the Board did not violate the applicable provisions of the AAPA, her actions did not justify the trial court’s conclusion that Hardy’s right to procedural due process had been violated. As the Board points out, the United States Supreme Court has held that a delay in the administrative process does not, by itself, constitute the deprivation of procedural due process. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 547, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Following its decision in Loudermill, the
holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that denial of access per se is noncompensable holding such agreements to be per se illegal holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment holding that a 9month adjudication is not of course unconstitutionally lengthy per se 