Bagwell v. Safeway Denver Milk Plant, No. 11-1267 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseIn January 2011, Daniel Bagwell filed a pro se complaint against his former employer, Safeway Denver Milk Plant (“Safeway”). In his complaint, Mr. Bagwell asserted claims for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mr. Bagwell included only two factual assertions in his complaint—that (1) his "hours changed," and (2) he experienced "career-ending performance evaluations." Safeway filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Bagwell’s complaint did not comply with Rules 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Bagwell did not respond to the motion. The district court dismissed his complaint, noting that Mr. Bagwell’s complaint was "entirely devoid of sufficient facts to state a claim for retaliation." Mr. Bagwell did not object to any of the magistrate judge’s specific findings or recommendations. Instead, he requested that his "case be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America on the grounds that Title VII is unconstitutional and violate[d his] civil rights." Upon review of Mr. Bagwell's appeal of the district court's findings in his case, the Tenth Circuit found that Mr. Bagwell waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and dismissed this matter.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.