taxes. Leger did not avail himself of any of these opportunities, and as a result, the department attached a lien to his property. Accordingly, it was only through Leger’s refusal to pay the assessed taxes or to post some security for the payment of the assessed taxes that his real property was attached. Leger cannot now argue that he is entitled to different procedural rights from those afforded to taxpayers who pay their assessments or post bond and then argue the validity of the tax through the abatement process. We conclude that the due process rights of Leger, like any other taxpayer, can be satisfied by postdeprivation proceedings. Although the attachment of a tax lien to his property may result in some hardship to Leger, cf. Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 747 (1974) (<HOLDING>), he is not in a position significantly
holding that a nonprofit hospital may not be a local public entity entitled to utilize the act and its oneyear limitations period if the hospital was not found to have conducted public business recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award holding that whether pleadings fail to state a cause of action may not be resolved by summary judgment recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss recognizing precarious financial position which may be faced by nonprofit entity while tax dispute is resolved