first step in the remedies available to the Providers. Throughout this litigation, FSSA has stated that the Providers are provided multiple appellate mechanisms if they believe an FSSA analyst erroneously denied a Medicaid claim. When a provider’s claim is denied payment “due to incorrect or inaccurate billing,” after resubmitting the claim the Medicaid provider “may appeal under the provisions of s have exhausted these state law remedies on any of their denied claims. Veterans Legal Def. Fund, 330 F.3d at 941 (denying the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim when the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs had adequate postdeprivation remedies available, but plaintiffs did not deny these remedies existed and they presented no coherent argument as to their inadequacy); Doherty, 75 F.3d at 321, 323 (<HOLDING>). Even the authority cited by the Providers
holding that the plaintiff has not raised a colorable claim that he was denied procedural due process because he did not allege that the available state remedies are constitutionally inadequate holding that a plaintiff could not proceed on her procedural due process claim brought under  1983 because she did not show that she had exhausted her state law remedies or alleged that those remedies were inadequate holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court