With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". established procedures. Failing to follow proper procedures is insufficient to establish an infringement of a liberty interest. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) (“Process is not an end in itself. Its constitutional purpose is to protect a substantive interest to which the individual has a legitimate claim of entitlement.”). Thus, the substantive due process violation claim fails because the failure to follow procedure and provide Grinter with a medical report, question Dunlap and Thomas, and make J. Belt available for questioning does not infringe a liberty interest. Thus, even if Grinter had asserted a procedural due process claim against these defendants, it also would have failed. See Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1165 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). These alleged procedural violations by

A: holding that due process does not require that parole authorities follow established procedure
B: holding a plaintiff cannot state a due process claim for defendants failure to follow statutory procedural requirements because a plaintiff cannot have a protect property interest in the procedure itself
C: holding that any reliance by the parole board on inadmissible hearsay did not violate due process
D: holding that doctrine does not violate due process
A.