Scarborough v. Frederick Cnty. Sch. Bd. 517 F. Supp. 3d 569 (W.D. Va. 2021) opportunity to be heard. Defendants move to dismiss this claim, arguing that because Scarborough has not established any constitutional violation, she has not established that she was entitled to any due process. Regarding Defendants Sovine and Angelo, Defendants add that, even assuming Scarborough were able to establish a constitutional violation, her factual allegations demonstrate that she received adequate due process because she was unblocked from Twitter on the same day after calling FCPS's attorney. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. "To establish a violation of procedural due process, plaintiffs must show that (1) they had property or a property interest (2) of which the defendant deprived them (3) without due process of law." Sunrise Corp. of Myrtle Beach v. City of Myrtle Beach , 420 F.3d 322, 328 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert Cnty. , 48 F.3d 810, 826 (4th Cir. 1995) ). As to the first element, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she had a "constitutionally cognizable life, liberty, or property interest." Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head , 724 F.3d 533, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). If the plaintiff has not been deprived of a protected liberty or property interest, then the question of whether she was afforded due process is "irrelevant, for the constitutional right to ‘due process’ is simply not implicated." Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson , 566 F.3d 138, 146 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The "broad concept of liberty includes the right to free speech, though the right remains subject to reasonable government regulation." Vaher v. Town of Orangetown , 916 F. Supp. 2d 404, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Near v. Minn. ex rel. Olson , 283 U.S. 697, 707–08, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931) ). For the second element, the state's deprivation of the liberty or property interest "can be by physical deprivation, ... or by a regulation that deprives an owner of [the property's economic value]." Sansotta , 724 F.3d at 540 (citations omitted). Finally, the plaintiff must show "that the procedures employed were constitutionally inadequate." Patterson , 566 F.3d at 145. The court first notes that despite Scarborough bringing Count II against "all Defendants," the claim involves solely the facts surrounding Facebook. (See 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 33 (stating that Defendants should have (1) informed her that her Facebook comments were subject to being deleted; (2) informed her that she was subject to being permanently blocked from Defendants' Facebook page; (3) informed her as to why her Facebook comments were offensive; and (4) given her an opportunity "to appeal the decision to permanently ban her from their Facebook page").) In other words, Scarborough's Count II allegations seemingly involve only FCSB and Edwards. Scarborough, however, states that "Defendant[s] cannot just ban Plaintiff. There must be rules and regulations before blocking." (Id. ¶ 34.) Because this allegation could be construed against Sovine and Angelo as well (as they allegedly blocked Scarborough on Twitter), the court will address this procedural due process claim against all Defendants out of an abundance of caution. a. FCSB and Edwards 582 Defendants raise a one-sentence argument regarding the procedural due process claim as it pertains to FCSB and Edwards: "Scarborough has not established that she was entitled to any due process as she has not established a violation *582 of any constitutionally protected right in the first instance." (ECF No. 38 at 10.) As explained in detail above, Scarborough has adequately pleaded a violation of her First Amendment rights relating to FCSB's and Edwards's actions on Facebook. Moreover, Scarborough alleges that she is still blocked from FCPS's Facebook page, and that she was not given sufficient process before or after the alleged constitutional deprivation. As this is the only argument Defendants raise regarding FCSB 9