Bowers v. Hice et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ZACHARY OMAR BOWERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ETHAN HICE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-493-D
ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing through counsel, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield for initial proceedings in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) [Doc. No. 3].
On September 5, 2025, Judge Maxfield issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ethan Hice in his
official capacity; Defendant John Doe #1 in his official and individual capacities;
Defendant John Doe #2 in his individual and official capacities; and Defendant the County
of Stephens County [Doc. No. 4]. The magistrate judge further recommended the Court
retain Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Hice in his individual capacity. Id. This Court
adopted Judge Maxfield’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety [Doc. No. 5].
On January 5, 2026, Judge Maxfield issued an order directing Plaintiff to show
cause on or before January 20, 2026, why this action should not be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to effect timely service of process [Doc. No. 7].
Case 5:25-cv-00493-D Document 11 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that he did not see the order requiring
service until over three months later [Doc. No. 9]. He asserts that Plaintiff became adverse
to him in his state criminal proceeding when Plaintiff “put the performance of this counsel
at issue” in the process of attempting to withdraw his plea. Id. Further, he contends that he
has approached several other attorneys and believes that Plaintiff and his family would
prefer different counsel. Id.
On February 12, 2026, Judge Maxfield issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending 	the 	Court 	dismiss 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	against 	Defendant 	Hice 	in 	his
individual capacity. In her report, Judge Maxfield notified Plaintiff of his right to file
objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before February 26, 2026, and that
failure to object waives Plaintiff’s right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues
contained in the report. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Upon review of the file and noting no timely objections to the findings and
recommendations 	of 	the 	magistrate 	judge, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim for violation of civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Hice in his individual capacity [Doc. No. 1] is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11 th day of March, 2026.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00493-D Document 11 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 2