us. With the Sickles and Markadonatos decisions in mind, we conclude that Mickel-son and Statham did not plead facts sufficient to establish that Ramsey County’s booking-fee policy fails to pass constitutional muster simply because it provides a post-deprivation remedy instead of a pre-deprivation hearing. The county has in place a coordinated refund process, and the modest private interest at stake does not approach those interests found to warrant a full-fledged pre-deprivation hearing. See Sickles, 501 F.3d at 730. The district court thus correctly concluded that the county’s interest in ensuring it can collect the statutorily authorized fee outweighs the minimal paperwork and temporary deprivation imposed on wrongfully deprived arrestees. Cf. Craft, 436 U.S. at 19, 98 S.Ct. 1554 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that the Mathews
recognizing the potential length of the deprivation in evaluating whether a procedure is adequate holding that the adam walsh amendments in categorically preventing an individualized determination of risk provide   near certainty of erroneous deprivation of defendants liberty interest holding that a 50 percent error rate would constitute a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation holding that where the recipient is a federal prisoner the government is required to provide him with actual notice of a deprivation holding that a prior hearing is not required where the potential length or severity of the deprivation does not indicate a likelihood of serious loss and where the procedures  are sufficiently reliable to minimize the risk of erroneous determination