due process rights were abridged because the magnitude of his punishment does not match the offense of which he is accused as compared to other officers accused of similar conduct. Schwartz buttresses his substantive due process claim with the conjecture that this Court should somehow affirmatively oblige the NYPD to institute a disciplinary tracking mechanism so that accused Police Officers and their lawyers can compare penalties in preparing their defense and subsequent appeals of disciplinary hearings. The Second Circuit has held that “the substantive component of the Due Process Clause does not provide a remedy to a public employee that would not be available to a private employee subject to identical conduct by his employer.” McClary v. O’Hare, 786 F.2d 83, 89 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>) (Oakes, J.); see also Costello v. Town of
holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983 holding that government actor must intentionally abuse his or her power as a state official to harm state employee in order to sustain substantive due process violation holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation