system to have been connected with the incident under investigation. 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(f); see also id. § 1386.22(g) (noting that the system “shall have unaccompanied access to all residents of a facility at reasonable times, which at a minimum shall include normal working hours and visiting hours” for the purposes of fully investigating alleged abuse and neglect). See Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. J.S. Tarwater Developmental Ctr., 97 F.3d 492, 497 (11th Cir.1996) (“It is clear that [the DD] Act provides express authority for P & As to gain broad access to records, facilities, and resi dents to ensure that the' Act’s mandates can be effectively pursued.”); Pennsylvania Prot. & Advocacy, Inc. v. Royer-Greaves Sch. for the Blind, 1999 WL 179797, at *6 (E.D.Pa. Mar.25, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Mississippi Prot. & Advocacy System, Inc. v.
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 holding that damages for diminished access are not compensable as long as suitable access remains holding that reasonable access includes general facility access without notice and patient access with twentyfour hour notice holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful access to courts and examining the facility as a whole to determine whether such access was sufficient holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts