due process,’ ” controls the inquiry. For example, in this case, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated her substantive due process rights by “entering [her] real property under the unsupportable claim of ‘emergency’ ” and that “plaintiff has a clear individual entitlement and constitutionally protected interest in her residence, including the ‘full bundle’ of property rights, *** and no such cause for removal thereof has been demonstrated.” Illegal entries are governed by the fourth amendment, and deprivations of property rights fall under the takings clause of the fifth amendment. U.S. Const., amends. IV V XIV Hence, such allegations cannot properly support plaintiffs substantive due process claim. See, eg., Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). As for her substantive due process claim, it
holding that the plaintiffs claim that city encouraged private individuals to trespass on the plaintiffs land was properly a fourth amendment rather than a substantive due process claim recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding that the plaintiffs fourteenth amendment substantive due process claim was foreclosed because the fourth amendment provided protection for their claim that law enforcement officers participated in an unlawful seizure of their mobile home recognizing a plaintiffs  1988 claim predicated on an alleged violation of his substantive due process rights 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