Derek William Wragge v. North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2031
DEREK WILLIAM WRAGGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:25-cv-01084-D-KS)
Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek William Wragge, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Derek William Wragge appeals the district court’s order denying his application to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing his case. The district court referred this case to
a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge
recommended denying Wragge’s application and ordering him to pay the requisite filing
fee. The magistrate judge further advised Wragge that failure to file specific objections to
this recommendation by June 30, 2025, could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. On June 30, Wragge filed a letter docketed as an
objection to the magistrate judge’s report that appeared to address his in forma pauperis
application and inability to pay the filing fee. On July 15, 2025, the district court entered
an order mistakenly finding that it had not received objections or the filing fee by the
prescribed deadlines. Accordingly, the court accepted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, denied Wragge’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed
his case.
First, we deny Wragge’s motion to amend his case and for appointment of counsel.
In addition, although we express no opinion regarding the merits of Wragge’s suit, we
vacate the dismissal order and remand for the district court to review de novo Wragge’s
timely filed objection to the magistrate judge’s report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United
States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that a district court’s
failure to apply the proper standard of review warrants vacatur and remand). We dispense

-- 2 of 3 --

3
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --