any argument regarding substantive due process in their memoranda. For the reasons stated in Section C(l)(b), supra, and because no reasonable jury could find the police defendants liable for substantive due process violations against plaintiff, I dismiss, sua sponte, the substantive due process claim against the police defendants. D. Monell Claims Against the Municipal Defendants Because I have concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the City doctor defendants violated any constitutional rights of plaintiff, his claim against the HHC under Monell is dismissed. See Doe v. Smith, 704 F.Supp. 1177, 1188 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (“[T]here can be no municipal liability where no constitutional violations are found to have occurred.”); Vassallo v. Lando, 591 F.Supp.2d 172, 202 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff also alleges a Monell claim against
holding that where no underlying constitutional violation occurred the city cannot be liable under monell holding that no monell claim can lie where a court finds no constitutional violation recognizing that where the board properly finds a violation of the act it can order reinstatement under its remedial powers granted by  160c although finding no violation of the act here holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that there can be no violation of  1986 without a predicate violation of  1985