or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. In order to demonstrate a violation of either substantive or procedural due process rights, the plaintiff must first demonstrate the possession of a federally protected property right to the relief sought. Puckett v. City of Glen Cove, 631 F.Supp.2d 226, 236 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (citing Lisa’s Party City, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 185 F.3d 12, 16 (2d Cir.1999)). Property interests “are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law-rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” Bd. of Regents of State Coll. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has held that, “[i]n order
holding that the plaintiff must have more than a unilateral expectation the plaintiff must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit holding that plaintiff must present such evidence holding that courts must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by  giving the plaintiff the benefit of all the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the pleaded facts holding that where the employment contract was at will there simply can be no certainty regarding whether the plaintiff would have remained employed long enough for the benefit the plaintiff claims he lost to have accrued holding that in order for a plaintiff to file suit against the government on a contract claim in the court of federal claims a plaintiff must have either direct privity or thirdparty beneficiary status