‘due process of law.’ ” Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 233-34 (3d Cir. 2006). “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (quotation omitted) (setting forth the test for determining whether a • procedure meets the minimum requirements of due process). In the context of traffic ticket enforcement and adjudication, procedures substantially similar to Philadelphia’s—which provides ample notice and multiple opportunities for both administrative agency and state court review of disputed parking violations—satisfy the requirements of due process. See Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103 F.3d 1346, 1351-53 (7th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>); Gardner v. City of Columbus, 841 F.2d 1272,
holding that we consider issues not raised at administrative level waived holding petitioner may not introduce on appeal issues that were not presented to or considered at the administrative level holding that chicagos system whichprovided only one level of administrative hearing before appeal to the state courts was sufficient holding that where plaintiff fails to raise issue of timeliness of departments hearing at administrative level the issue is waived on appeal holding chicagos system for adjudicating parking violations satisfied due process