of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538-39, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985); Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 742 (6th Cir.2000); Williams v. Kentucky, 24 F.3d 1526, 1537-38 (6th Cir.1994). 6 . The landmark decision in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) noted that due process requires ."some pretermination opportunity to respond” only where a person is deprived of a "significant property interest.” Whether a five-day suspension without pay is a significant loss of property has not been decided by the Supreme Court. Berardinelli v. Town of Newburgh, 895 F.Supp. 56, 57, n. 3 (S.D.N.Y.1995). The issue has received inconsistent treatment from the lower courts. Compare Garraghty v. Jordan, 830 F.2d 1295, 1299 (4th Cir.1987)(<HOLDING>) and Boals v. Gray, 775 F.2d 686, 689 (6th
holding that fiveday suspension was not a de minimis deprivation holding that district court properlydiscounted four calls as de minimis holding that a robbery of 40 to 50 satisfied the de minimis standard holding that to demonstrate retaliation complainedof action must be more than de minimis  holding that a suspension from employment and deprivation of duties and equipment constitute discrete acts