Case Name: Thaddaus MUMFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-14
Citations: 261 F. App'x 505
Docket Number: No. 07-1800
Parties: Thaddaus MUMFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 505–505

Head Matter:
Thaddaus MUMFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
No. 07-1800.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 14, 2008.
Thaddaus Mumford, Appellant Pro Se. Tracy Lynn Eggleston, Paul Aivars Reichs, Cozen O’Connor, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
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, 2007 WL 2156336 (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).