Tarver v. First Student

Case: 25-50768 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50768 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 1, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Norman Tarver, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus First Student, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:25-CV-853 ______________________________ Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Plaintiff-Appellant Norman Tarver, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this Title VII retaliation suit against Defendant-Appellee First Student Inc., his former employer. A magistrate judge screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and recommended the suit be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The magistrate judge observed Case: 25-50768 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2026

No. 25-50768 that Tarver alleges he was a school bus monitor and was subject to various adverse employment actions after he reported co-workers for unsafely operating a school bus. Even crediting Tarver’s allegations, the magistrate judge explained that reporting safety violations is not “protected activity” capable of supporting a retaliation claim. 1 Title VII only prohibits retaliation against an employee for opposing a practice “made [] unlawful” by the statute itself, such as race or gender-based discrimination. 2 Because workplace safety violations are not made unlawful by Title VII, no cause of action for retaliation is available under the statute where an employee opposes such practices. Tarver did not object to the report of the magistrate judge. Finding no clear error, the district court adopted the report.

On appeal, Tarver offers reasons for his failure to timely object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, re-alleges the factual basis of his complaint, and criticizes the lack of resources available to pro se litigants.

But he does not address the district court’s reasoning for dismissing his claim: that as a matter of law, his report of unsafe work practices is not cognizable “protected activity” under Title VII. We agree with the district court’s holding. And regardless, Tarver has forfeited review by failing to engage with the district court’s analysis. 3 AFFIRMED.