leave pending a medical examination and his subsequent terminations for failing to appear at that examination among other things in denying qualified immunity the district court committed a fundamental error by relying exclusively on president alleged failure to comply with the new york civil service law but as we explained in our brief any violation of state procedural law is not relevant to a federal due process claim it's not relevant it is rel that's correct your honor there are cases that say that it's not relevant and i think that essentially just saying what your honor's point you know if there is a violation of state law it's not relevant saying it doesn't matter that isn't the point it matters but you can't do what the conduct underlying the violation may be relevant but the violation itself is not is not sufficient to prove a federal due process violation so beginning first with the plaintiff's placement on leave process part i mean correct we believe that both prongs of the analysis are satisfied here and the supreme court has said that this court can can take either prom first but we think that there is no violation of due process much less a clearly established a due process violation with respect to the placement on leave plaintiff's claim fails for several reasons including the threshold reason that the plaintiff was not deprived of a property interest protected by due whether he was getting paid when he was leaving or not now the fact that he's not here makes it difficult and of course the fact is never been here and any of this is part of your case that we don't know is  in another place he says he stopped receiving pay in august of two thousand and eleven which is when he was terminated and we we asserted in our opening brief that the april allegation was a typo because the deposition passage he cites there actually says august not april and in his response brief he never contested that the april allegation was a typo he was mean will have to figure out if there is hearing which with respect of a mental illness there clearly was not a statement could crack be arguable that that is a violation of due process and that that is clear enough win or do we send it back and my question still if those are uncertain do we have some reason for sending it back that even even if he was deprived of pay and even if president were somehow responsible for that deprivation his claim would still fail because there is no clearly stairs no case law much less clearly established case law requiring written notice of the basis for placing someone on a temporary medical leave and in fact even in the case of a unpaid suspension the supreme court has said that you can dip dispense with all pre depravation process if the employer perceives a violate state law under federal law there is no such requirement sufficient to get by qualified correct and in fact under federal due process law written is not required even for terminations so in the loudermilk case the u s supreme court case from one thousand nine hundred five the court said that oral notice of the charges is sufficient before terminating a ten state employee there is no need for written notice so in the case of a temporary suspension written notice is not required under the female says you should receive oral or written notice an explanation of the evidence and an opportunity to be heard can all of those things take place and one meeting or do you need to get be given some notice of the charges beforehand i'm not of aware of any case law suggesting that there needs to be more than one meeting or in fact the supreme court has said that this this process need not be a labrat and that it can be done orally and i believe that there are cases saying that us that a meeting in which the charges are presented and the employee is in this case were a person who's told you can come to a meeting and will explain more and the person has not done that that would be sufficient even if it were needed correct because under this court's decision in manci where a employee does not take advantage of the process afforded to him he can't complain about the process there's no way for the court to assess what would have happened that at that meeting if he if he declined to even participate and so there's there's the july eighteenth disciplinary meeting where he was repeatedly told if you don't come to this meeting disciplinary action will be taken against you and you will waive your opportunity to present contrary information even his own union official told him you will be terminated if you don't show up for this meeting he nonetheless failed to appear and that same day the university issue determination letter and at that point had already received all the process to which he was entitled under the due process clause but the university realized that under the collective bargaining agreement they needed to give him a fourteen day period to file a grievance and so they ended up  determination and issuing time to give him the time and he ultimately never filed a grievance and that grievance would have resulted in a full adversarial hearing before his term a nation which is definitely not required under the federal due process clause although it is required under the collective bargaining agreement ask you precisely what you are asking of us you're asking us to say that the district court urged on its basis for finding no qualified immunity even admitting all the facts as you must then are you asking us to vacate and remand or are you asking us to reverse into grant immunity the latter your honor because we think that the record before the court is sufficient to establish that there is no violation of clearly established due process law and here unlike a situation where it comes from an administrative agency if we find on the we're not deferring or i mean this is a motion for summary judgment so our viewers do know correct this is de novo review and so the court can affirm on any basis supported by the record and qualified immunity was preserved in this case