interests put forward to justify it; (2) alternative means of exercising their rights remain open to the prisoners; (3) accommodation of the asserted rights will trigger a ripple effect on fellow inmates and prison officials; and (4) a ready alternative to the regulation would fully accommodate the prisoners’ rights at a de minimis cost to the valid penological interest. Id. It is undisputed that legitimate security concerns justified Defendants’ decision to suspend Plaintiffs phone and visitation from December 1 through 5, 2007. Once Defendants had installed proper equipment to monitor his conversations, Plaintiffs phone privileges were restored. Moreover, Plaintiff was only denied phone and visitation privileges for five days. See Overton, 539 U.S. at 133-137, 123 S.Ct. 2162 (<HOLDING>). On December 6, 2007, Plaintiff complained
holding that resigntorun provision of maine judicial code of conduct does not violate the guarantees of equal protection freedom of speech or freedom of association in either the maine or united states constitutions recognizing common law privileges holding that a twoyear suspension of visitation privileges did not violate either the first amendments right to freedom of association holding that driving privileges are not a fundamental right and a statute requiring a license suspension after a conviction for possession of cocaine did not violate substantive due process holding that a nocontact order did not violate the right to freedom of association