Wragge v. The City of Wilmington

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION NO. 7:25-CV-1039-FL

DEREK WRAGGE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) CITY OF WILMINGTON, ) ) Defendant. )

This matter is before the court for review of plaintiff’s pro se amended complaint (DE 7) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II entered a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), wherein it is recommended plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed (DE 10).

Plaintiff timely filed objections to the M&R. The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s M&R to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court does not perform a de novo review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Upon careful review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The magistrate judge recommends dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), on the basis that plaintiffs complaint does not identify any state or federal laws he contends defendant violated, and that even under independent review and liberally construing the complaint, no colorable claim can be discerned. Upon careful review of the M&R, the court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis to be thorough, and there is no clear error.

Plaintiff's objections, meanwhile, are not responsive to the M&R. They do not engage with the magistrate judge’s reasoning. Plaintiff merely details his damages’ calculations and reiterates requested relief. These objections provide no basis for the court to reject the M&R. The court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own, and plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED, as set forth in the M&R and for the reasons given above, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The clerk of court is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of June, 2025.

United States District Judge