Mumford v. Harrelson

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1800

THADDAUS MUMFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY HARRELSON, Deputy Sheriff, individually and in his official capacity; DALE B. FURR, in his official capacity; FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, SURETY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (1:04-cv-00017-WWD)

Submitted: December 17, 2007 Decided: January 14, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thaddaus Mumford, Appellant Pro Se. Tracy Lynn Eggleston, Paul Aivars Reichs, COZEN O’CONNOR, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Thaddaus Mumford appeals the order of the magistrate

judge* denying his motion to extend or reopen the appeal period so

that he could appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and find

no abuse of discretion. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

Co., 76 F.3d 530, 532 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (stating standard of

review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

magistrate judge. Mumford v. Harrelson, No. 1:04-cv-00017-WWD

(M.D.N.C. July 25, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 2 -