the short notice and denial of a continuance prohibited him from procuring counsel. Although Husband does not differentiate in his argument between substantive and procedural due process, we believe both are implicated in the issues he raises on appeal. Accordingly, both are addressed in our analysis. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1; S.C. Const, art. I, § 3. “In order to prove a denial of substantive due process, a party must show that he was arbitrarily and capriciously deprived of a cognizable property interest rooted in state law.” Sloan v. S.C. Bd. of Physical Therapy Examr’s, 370 S.C. 452, 483, 636 S.E.2d 598, 614 (2006); see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Procedural “[d]ue process requires (1)
holding that suspended employee had no constitutionally protected property interest in actually performing job due process rights are not implicated so long as employee continues to receive salary and benefits holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest recognizing that early release statutes can create a liberty interest protected by due process guarantees  holding that false statements are constitutionally protected recognizing that before due process guarantees are implicated there must be a deprivation by the government of constitutionally protected interest