means.” Id. at 41, Page ID 41. To the extent this claim implicates testimony given by the officers in Gavitt’s preliminary examination and trial, the district court held that Fatchett and Kalman are entitled to absolute immunity, citing Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2009). Gav-itt does not challenge this part of the ruling. To the extent Count II can be construed as alleging that defendants Fatchett and Kalman violated Gavitt’s due process rights by continuously failing to correct their misrepresentation during the 26-year period of his wrongful imprisonment, the district court viewed the allegations as a claim for post-conviction failure to disclose exculpatory evidence (i.e., Brady materials). The court held that due process does not impose o E.D. Mich. 2014) (<HOLDING>); and Latta v. Chapala, 221 Fed.Appx. 443,
recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding that the sixth circuit like most circuits has not recognized a substantive due process claim based on an inadequate investigation holding presumptive lead plaintiff inadequate due to unrelated fraud investigation holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed recognizing a plaintiffs  1988 claim predicated on an alleged violation of his substantive due process rights