Mumford v. Harrelson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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 District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Magistrate Judge. (1:04-cv-00017-WWD)
December 17, 2007
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. no abuse of discretion. We have reviewed the record and find
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 Mumford v. Harrelson, No. 1:04-cv-00017-WWD We dispense with oral argument because
(M.D.N.C. July 25, 2007).
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 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?