Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state cause of action plaintiff-police officer's 3rd amended complaint, alleging that defendant-City and others violated her substantive and procedural due process rights when plaintiff's supervisor: (1) failed to intervene after dispatcher ignored calls plaintiff made for backup during plaintiff's response to armed robbery; and (2) edited plaintiff's report of said incident by removing plaintiff's complaints about failure to respond to her calls for backup. Substantive due process protects only those fundamental rights and liberties which are objectively rooted deeply in history and tradition, and plaintiff failed to pinpoint what fundamental interest she sought to vindicate. Moreover, while plaintiff contended that she had property interest in her job, public employment is not fundamental right, and plaintiff's claim that her supervisor acted apathetically in listening to dispatcher did not shock conscious so as to support substantive due process claim. Also, plaintiff reference to state-created-doctrine was inapt, where plaintiff had agreed to do dangerous work, and where armed robber, as opposed to government, created instant danger. Too, editing of plaintiff's report did not rise to conduct that shocked conscious. Plaintiff's procedural due process claim also failed, where: (1) plaintiff was not denied any notice of intentional deprivation of her job or opportunity to be heard; and (2) plaintiff never tied her supervisor's actions to policy or custom of police department so as to render City liable under Monell.