within 72 hours, as required by Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 4.3. It is axiomatic, however, that § 1983 pro vides no cause of action for violation of state-law procedural requirements, even if those requirements were instituted in part to ensure compliance with the federal Constitution. Rights “created only by state law ... are not subject to substantive due process protection ... because substantive due process rights are created only by the Constitution.” McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1556 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc) (quotations and citation omitted). “[Vjiolation of state law ... is not enough by itself to support a claim under section 1983.” Knight v. Jacobson, 300 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir.2002); see also Vaughn v. City of Athens, 176 Fed.Appx. 974, 976 (11th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). Second, plaintiff contends that the City’s
holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution holding the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment extends the right to jury trial to defendants in serious criminal cases in state courts holding immaterial a claimed fourteenth amendment due process right under alabama tort law holding that there is no fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to be free from malicious prosecution and suggesting that such a cause of action might lie under the fourth amendment holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel