resolved the situation in an ill-advised, inappropriate, ill-considered, or flatly incorrect manner, their conduct does not rise to the level of shocking the conscience of federal judges. The allegations in plaintiffs complaint paint a portrait of an unfortunate but nonetheless relatively garden-variety employment dispute. “The Due Process Clause is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions.” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex, 503 U.S. 115, 129, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Thus, plaintiffs substantive due process claim fails to state a claim insofar as it is based on the manner in which defendants handled the staffs allegedly false accusations against plaintiff. See, e.g., Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 530 (<HOLDING>). 4. Forced Retirement, i.e., Constructive
holding so where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had colluded to claim falsely that the plaintiffs physician had informed the claims adjuster that the plaintiff had been released to work and where the plaintiff was later discharged from employment and denied workers compensation benefits holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion holding the district court committed reversible error by not dismissing substantive process claim against a supervisor who gave the plaintiff an unearned negative annual evaluation because the plaintiff had been embroiled in a scandal at the time same with respect to substantive due process claim against board and committee that made allegedly erroneous findings that plaintiff had engaged in unethical conduct holding that plaintiff had not stated an equal protection claim where plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant treated him differently from anyone else who both had problems with alcohol and had been arrested holding that damages were not available to a plaintiff who challenged an ordinance under a due process theory because the plaintiff had not sought a permit and therefore any claim for damages was purely speculative