may assert a due pr element because it is clear that the state court provided Stratton with notice and adequate hearings prior to the termination of the familial relations. The complaint alleges numerous procedural defects, none of which persuade otherwise, and only one is worth addressing. Specific to the initial seizure of the children, the complaint alleges that the Strattons: (1) never received certain state-mandated summons or at the very least, the required 7-day initial hearing, see N.C. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 7B-506(a); and (2) were never given the opportunity to present evidence to determine whether to continue custody, see id. § 7B-506(b). These assertions bely the court records which are the proper subject of judicial notice. See Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). On January 30, 2001, when the Stratton
holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim holding that the court need not accept as true  unwarranted factual inferences holding that in the absence of an adverse credibility determination the court must accept petitioners testimony as true holding that in considering whether a claim fails to state a claim we need not  accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit  quoting sprewell v golden state warriors 266 f3d 979 988 9th cir2001 holding that a court need not accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint