Unpublished Dispositions. Sharif Abdul Rahman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Ronald Warnsley, Perry Johnson, Dale Foltz, Charlesanderson, Jeff Jones, Mco Union, Raymond E. Tidd,defendants-appellees, 917 F.2d 25 (6th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 917 F.2d 25 (6th Cir. 1990) Oct. 23, 1990

Before MERRITT, Chief Judge, and BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr. and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

S. Sharif Abdul Rahman, a Michigan inmate, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he basically challenged the constitutionality of a Michigan prison regulation concerning prisoner identification. The case was referred to a magistrate who recommended that judgment be entered for the defendants. The district court adopted a portion of the recommendation over Abdul Rahman's objections and entered summary judgment for all the defendants. Abdul Rahman has submitted a brief on appeal without benefit of counsel.

We review a summary judgment to ascertain that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 862 F.2d 597, 601 (6th Cir. 1988). We find that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants.

Abdul Rahman objected to a Michigan prison regulation that required the inclusion of a prisoner's old (or committed) name on his cell door identification as well as his new (in this case Muslim) name. We have discovered in the cases no such constitutional right to have his old name deleted from his cell door and plaintiff has pointed to no such authority.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.