Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-ncmd-1_26-cv-00377-1

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 2026-06-03

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:45:08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
DERRICK M. ALLEN, SR., ) 
 ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
 v. ) 1:26CV377 
 ) 
UNKNOWN PERSONS AT THE WAKE ) 
COUNTY JAIL, ) 
 ) 
 Respondent. ) 
 
ORDER 
On May 4, 2026, the United States Magistrate Judge’s Order 
and Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties 
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Objections were filed but 
it is not clear they were timely within the time limits prescribed 
by section 636. (See Doc. 4.) However, the court will treat them 
as timely within section 636 so as to conduct a de novo review. 
The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the 
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections were made and has 
made a de novo determination in accord with the Magistrate Judge’s 
report. The court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge’s 
Recommendation. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed sua 
sponte without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on 
the proper § 1983 forms and in the correct district. There being 
neither a substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a 

2 
 
constitutional right affecting the conviction nor a debatable 
procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability shall not issue. 
 
 
 /s/ Thomas D. Schroeder 
 United States District Judge 
 
June 3, 2026 

Passage view · GavelSight