in detaining C.H., II until the arrival of the police, cannot be faulted. Plaintiffs also contend that Wendy Tucker—C.H., II’s principal—violated his due process rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment when she suspended C.H., II allegedly with no explanation or opportunity to refute the charges. This assertion misstates the record. The facts as clearly articulated in the district court’s order demonstrate that Tucker called C.H., II in to her office and asked him if he knew why he was being suspended. He told her why and argued for a shorter suspension. She considered his explana tion that he was defending himself but rejected it and suspended him for ten days. That is all the process that is required. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 582, 95 S.Ct. 729, 740, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Keough v. Tate Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 748 F.2d
holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he or she is doing violates that right holding that the root requirement of due process is that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest holding that for a short suspension of 10 days or less the student need only informally be told what he is accused of doing and be given an opportunity to explain his version of the facts holding that an employee might be entitled to overtime where he was told that he would not be paid overtime but was not told to limit his hours holding that in disciplinary proceedings a student must be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and if he denies them an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story