being free from bodily restraints while incarcerated, Walker fails to show a genuine issue of material fact to support the claim that he was restrained without due process. The record shows that, for each restraint order, Walker was provided with a written statement of reasons and an opportunity to object by writing to the Deputy Superintendent for Security at Clinton. Walker did, in fact, follow this process to object to his restraints on four separate occasions. Where, as here, Walker had previously stabbed a corrections officer with a makeshift weapon and where the reasons for the restraint related to his written homicidal threats against other inmates, such informal procedures afford due process. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 228-29, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (<HOLDING>). 2. Equal Proiection Walker claims that
holding a publisheronly rule was constitutional because prison administrators are accorded deference and rule was reasonably related to the penological interest of maintaining internal prison security holding that prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the constitution holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding that where challenged decision is based on experience of prison administrators and where the states interest implicates the safety of other inmates and prison personnel due process is satisfied by informal nonadversary procedures holding prison official must have acted with reckless disregard for the inmates safety