the dual tests of logic and the law. Paying a parking fine under these circumstances does not amount to the deprivation of a property interest without due process. IV. Finally, Plaintiffs claim a property interest in “appurtenant service of process and appeal rights.” (Pl.’s Mem. in Op. to Defs.’ Supplemental Am. Mot. to Dismiss 20)(“thus, not only were the Plaintiffs ... deprived of their monies and their motor vehicles, they were also denied their right to receive notice of their right to appeal, and were thus deprived of the right to appeal itself.”). The fundamental aspect of Fourteenth Amendment due process is notice. It neither guarantees nor requires compliance with specific statutory procedures. See, e.g. Experimental Holdings, Inc. v. Farris, 503 F.3d 514, 519 (6th Cir.2007)(<HOLDING>)(quoting TriHealth, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 430
holding that a mere failure to accord procedural protection called for by state law or regulation does not of itself amount to a denial of due process holding that due process does not require that parole authorities follow established procedure holding that because process is not an end in itself once a court has found that the petitioner does not have a valid liberty interest a challenge to both procedural and substantive due process must fail holding a plaintiff cannot state a due process claim for defendants failure to follow statutory procedural requirements because a plaintiff cannot have a protect property interest in the procedure itself 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