the JCPS investigation was flawed because Bell interviewed only some of the students in the plaintiff’s class, many of whom were children of parents who were making accusations against the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the CPS also claim that the JCPS investigation was inadequate because: (1) the children were typically interviewed in the presence of their parents, (2) it lasted only one, week, and (3) it relied too heavily on the uncorroborated hearsay h Cir.1988)(three-day suspension without pay did not trigger due process protections); Carter v. Western Reserve Psychiatric Habilitation, 767 F.2d 270, 272, n. 1 (6th Cir.1985)(two-day suspension without pay was a de minimis deprivation not deserving of due process protection); and Hershinow v. Bonamarte, 735 F.2d 264, 265 (7th Cir.1984)(<HOLDING>). 7 . Although the plaintiff has attempted to
holding that aliens in deportation hearings enjoy due process protections under the fifth amendment holding that due process protections do not apply where a public employee is not fired holding that confrontation clause protections do not extend to sentencing hearings holding that eighth amendment protections against cruel and unusual punish ment do not apply to deportation proceedings holding temporary suspension pursuant to credible allegation of fraud does not trigger due process protections