must also satisfy the jurisdictional requirement present in every § 1983 action that the “claimed deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Haines v. Fisher, 82 F.3d 1503, 1508 (10th Cir.1996); Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488, 492 (10th Cir.1995) (“The under color of state law requirement is a jurisdictional requisite for a § 1983 action.”) (internal quotations omitted). If a plaintiff can establish these elements, a defendant has infringed a plaintiffs procedural due process rights if it failed to provide a “name-clearing hearing.” See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573 n. 12, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (stating that, where a liberty interest is implicated, due process requires notice and a hearing to “provide the person an opportunity to clear his name”); Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 526 (<HOLDING>). Miller makes three arguments related to
holding that absent evidence to the contrary court proceedings are presumed to be procedurally proper holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that cancellation may only occur while coverage is still in effect holding that no constitutional violation may occur if a procedurally proper nameclearing hearing is provided