one aspect of the R & R. Plaintiff claimed that Luther’s investigation was a form of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment because Luther disliked the contents of “Wake Up!”. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that, “even though the search for and the seizure of [plaintiffs] documents ... may have trampled upon plaintiffs First Amendment right to free speech, so long as the search and the seizure were conducted pursuant to prison regulations that are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, no actionable constitutional violation exists.” Pilgrim v. Luther, No. 01 Civ. 8995, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2933, at *14-15 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2003) (“Pilgrim I ”) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (<HOLDING>)). The Magistrate Judge observed that the
holding that regulations may impinge constitutional rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding that prison administration may infringe upon prisoners first amendment rights as long as the infringement is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding that perfection not required for regulation to be reasonable courts task is simply to determine whether regulation is reasonably related to agencys statutory mandate holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests