Mumford v. Harrelson, No. 07-1800 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1800 THADDAUS MUMFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY HARRELSON, Deputy Sheriff, individually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 District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Magistrate Judge. (1:04-cv-00017-WWD) Submitted: December 17, 2007 Decided: Middle Dixon, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 -
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.
