citations omitted) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). In determining adequacy in any given ease, a court must weigh the three factors identified by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest.... 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. 893. There is no question that DeMichele’s interest in his tenured teaching position is substantial. See, e.g., FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 243, 108 S.Ct. 1780, 100 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470
holding that plaintiff must on his or her own initiative prove that the product reached him or her without substantial change recognizing the severity of depriving someone of his or her livelihood holding that for a legal malpractice claim to accrue a plaintiff need not know the precise extent of his or her damages or even have suffered all of the damages attributable to his or her attorneys negligence holding that a defendant may raise whether the forfeiture order is so excessive under the eighth amendment that it would in extreme cases effectively deprive the defendant of his or her future livelihood holding that officers could execute a warrantless arrest of someone standing in the threshold of her dwelling