established procedures. Failing to follow proper procedures is insufficient to establish an infringement of a liberty interest. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) (“Process is not an end in itself. Its constitutional purpose is to protect a substantive interest to which the individual has a legitimate claim of entitlement.”). Thus, the substantive due process violation claim fails because the failure to follow procedure and provide Grinter with a medical report, question Dunlap and Thomas, and make J. Belt available for questioning does not infringe a liberty interest. Thus, even if Grinter had asserted a procedural due process claim against these defendants, it also would have failed. See Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1165 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). These alleged procedural violations by
holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that due process does not require that parole authorities follow established procedure holding that any reliance by the parole board on inadmissible hearsay did not violate due process holding a plaintiff cannot state a due process claim for defendants failure to follow statutory procedural requirements because a plaintiff cannot have a protect property interest in the procedure itself holding that the bias streamlining procedure does not violate an aliens due process rights