Is there any evidence to support a claim that a plaintiff was denied access to his migraine medication and medical appliances because they were not medically authorized?

The responses to plaintiff's administrative grievances suggest that once plaintiff complained about the missing medical appliances and medication, defendants intentionally withheld these items because they were not authorized. However, authorized deprivations of property are permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). According to the exhibits attached to the amended complaint, defendants did not allow plaintiff to have his medical appliances and migraine medication because they were not medically authorized. Under these circumstances, the deprivation of this property was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.