important correspondence to that address. That he decided to absent himself from his address without furnishing other instructions to IPS, or that his father decided, for whatever reason, to keep the letter to himself, are not factors which warrant modifying IPS’s notification procedures. The government has to assume that adults will act responsibly. Requiring IPS to develop policies tailored to the panoply of quirky behaviors available to humans is not a course that this Court can recommend. Atkins’s claim that IPS abridged his Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him a hearing is meritless. By failing to respond within ten days from the date of delivery of the IPS notice, Atkins’s waived his right to a hearing. See Fern v. Thorp Public School, 532 F.2d 1120, 1131 (7th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>); Field v. Boyle, 503 F.2d 774, 778 (7th
holding that a hearing must be held to determine credibility in preliminary injunction cases holding that literally false finding in itself warranted the grant of the injunction sought holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim holding that teacher who sought injunction when faced with discharge waived right to hearing holding preliminary injunction improper where it exceeded the relief sought and granted the same relief which would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction