Wragge v. North Carolina - Appeal of Dismissal Order

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed February 23rd, 2026

Detected February 24th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court's order that denied an application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed a case. The appellate court found that the district court may not have properly reviewed a timely filed objection.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court's order that dismissed Derek William Wragge's case and denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellate court noted that the district court mistakenly found that it had not received objections or the filing fee by the prescribed deadlines, despite Wragge filing a letter objection on June 30, 2025, which appeared to address his application. The court vacated the dismissal order and remanded for the district court to review Wragge's timely filed objection de novo.

This decision means the district court must re-evaluate Wragge's application and objection. While the appellate court expressed no opinion on the merits of Wragge's underlying suit, the remand requires the district court to apply the proper standard of review. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, as this is an individual case appeal. The case is identified by docket number 25-2031 and originated from the Eastern District of North Carolina (7:25-cv-01084-D-KS).

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 2031 DEREK WILLI AM WRAGGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLI NA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the Eastern District o f North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Jud ge. (7:25 - cv - 01084 -D- KS) Submitted: February 19, 202 6 Decided: February 23, 2026 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublis hed per curiam opinion. Derek William Wragge, Appellant Pro S e. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Derek William Wragge appeals the district co urt’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis an d dismissing his case. T he 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. O n June 30, Wragge filed a letter docketed as an objection to the magistrate judg e’s report that appeared to ad dress his in forma pauperis application and inability to pay the filing fee. On July 15, 20 25, the district court entered an order mistakenly findi ng th at it had not received objection s or the filing fee by the prescribed deadlines. Accordingly, the court accepted the magistrate judg e’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 o f 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. 201 9) (noting that a district court’s failure to apply the prop er standard of review warrants vacatur and remand). We dispense

3 with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before this court and argument would no t aid the decisional proces s. VACATED A ND REMA NDED