See id. Marrero concedes in her amended complaint that on May 3, 2002, she received a letter informing her of the Housing Department’s intention to remove her from office. This letter, along with a second letter, required her to appear at an informal meeting to discuss the removal proceedings. She attended the meeting and was given a full opportunity to respond to each of the allegations. Even drawing all inferences in Marrero’s favor, the process provided her in this pre-termination hearing comported with due process guarantees by providing her notice and an opportunity to be heard. As a result, the pre-termination hearing provided constitutionally adequate process without necessitating a post-termination hearing. See Feliciano-Angulo v. Rivera-Cruz, 858 F.2d 40, 43-44 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). 2. Equal Protection Claim Under the Equal
holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that due process requires no irreducible combination of pre and posttermination hearings holding no due process violation with respect to hearings for protective orders against domestic abuse holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding there is no meaningful distinction between due course and due process