With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". immunity as a matter of law because it was objectively reasonable for them to believe, at the time, that their denial of kosher meals to an inmate who self-identified as a Hebrew Israelite did not violate the inmate’s rights. In April 2004, when Barnes arrived at Southport, the Orientation Manual provided that kosher meals were “available to Jewish inmates.” (per curiam), it was not unreasonable for Southport officials to deny Barnes kosher meals because he was registered as Hebrew Israelite in accordance with the prison policy limiting kosher meals to Jewish inmates. Nor was it unreasonable for the prison officials to rely on Barnes’s registered religious designation in making its initial kosher meal determination. See Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Once the Central Office determined that the

A: holding that docs may place reasonable limitations on an inmates right to the free exercise of religion including a requirement that the inmate register his religious affiliation
B: recognizing a religious institutions right to free exercise of religion
C: holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise
D: holding that  relatively shortterm and sporadic  intrusions on an inmates prayer activities did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of his religion
A.