actions, or instructions are not at issue. The case depends on whether students, supposedly under Plaintiffs supervision, repeatedly and grossly flaunted Ohio University’s ethical standards. Defendants punished Plaintiff for his failure to act. As credibility was not at issue, cross-examination would be a fruitless exercise. Thus, due process does not entitle Plaintiff to cross-examination in this context. Third, Plaintiff demanded an impartial moderator. Until proven otherwise, the Court “must start with the assumption that government employees tasked with performing an adjudicatory or quasi-adjudicatory function will do so fairly and impartially.” Rosen v. Goetz, 410 F.3d 919, 930 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 196-97, 102 S.Ct. 1665, 72 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) (<HOLDING>)). Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to
recognizing presumption recognizing this presumption recognizing added presumption holding that courts must start  from the presumption that   hearing officers  are unbiased holding that the credibility determinations of hearing officers are afforded special deference