(quoting O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 349, 107 S.Ct. 2400). 76 . See Holland, 758 F.3d at 222-23. 77 . Salahuddin, 467 F.3d at 274 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)). 78 . Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096-97 (2d Cir.1997) (rejecting plaintiff’s claim that he did not need to identify his sect in addition to registering as a Muslim). 79 . City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). 80 . LeClair v. Saunders, 627 F.2d 606, 609-10 (2d Cir.1980). 81 . See Giano v. Senkowski, 54 F.3d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir.1995). 82 . Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 n. 2, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972). 83 . See Graham v. Mahmood, No. 05 Civ. 10071, 2008 WL 1849167, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2008) (<HOLDING>). 84 . Ford v. Palmer, 539 Fed.Appx. 5, 6 (2d
holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding that regulations may impinge constitutional rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding that even if nation of islam members and sunni muslims were similarly situated denying the former additional access to prison facilities was reasonably related to validpenological interests holding that although prison inmates have a first amendment right to access to the courts prison officials may regulate law library access including reasonable time place and manner of access taking into account the administrative needs of the institution