SLC Land and Cattle and SLC Trust (collectively, “SLC”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in fa*385vor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Farm Services Agency, (collectively, “Appellees”). SLC argues that the district court violated Rule 56(e)’s ten-day notice requirement by only giving SLC two days to respond to Appellees’ motion for summary judgment.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party responding to a motion for summary judgment ten days to present argument and evidence in opposition to the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We strictly enforce Rule 56(c)’s ten-day notice requirement. See Powell v. United States, 849 F.2d 1576, 1579 (5th Cir.1988); see also Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d 1388, 1397-98 (5th Cir.1994). Nevertheless, we apply the harmless error doctrine to “lack of notice required by Rule 56(c).” Powell, 849 F.2d at 1580. Error in notice is harmless “if the nonmovant has no additional evidence or if all of the nonmovant’s additional evidence is reviewed by the appellate court and none of the evidence presents a genuine issue of material fact.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Dev. Corp., 992 F.2d 1398, 1403 (5th Cir.1993).
Even assuming that SLC did not consent to the district court’s truncation of the notice period, SLC does not point to any additional evidence or legal arguments that it would have introduced had the district court fully complied with Rule 56(c). Therefore, the error in notice was harmless and not reversible.
AFFIRMED.