Bowers v. Hice

United States District Court, Oklahoma Western

Bowers v. Hice

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ZACHARY OMAR BOWERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-493-D ) ETHAN HICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 4] filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B)-(C). Upon initial screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. No. 1], Judge Maxfield recommends dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against (1) Defendant Ethan Hice in his official capacity; (2) Defendant John Doe #1, a jailer, in his individual and official capacities; and (3) Defendant John Doe #2, the Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities. Judge Maxfield also recommends dismissing with prejudice the claim against Defendant the County of Stephens County. The case file shows no timely objection to the Report nor request for an extension of time, even though Plaintiff was expressly informed of his right to object, the deadline for doing so, and the firm waiver rule. See Moore v. United States,

950 F.2d 656, 659

(10th Cir. 1991). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived further review of all issues addressed in the Report. See id.; see also United States v. 2121 East 30th Street,

73 F.3d 1057, 1060

(10th Cir. 1996). Further, for the reasons explained by Judge Maxfield, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a claim against (1) Defendant Ethan Hice in his official capacity; (2) Defendant John Doe #1, a jailer, in his individual and official capacities; (3) Defendant John Doe #2, the Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities; and (4) Defendant the County of Stephens County. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 4] is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff’s claims against (1) Defendant Ethan Hice in his official capacity; (2) Defendant John Doe #1, a jailer, in his individual and official capacities; and (3) Defendant John Doe #2, the Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant the County of Stephens County are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Hice in his individual capacity is retained. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23" day of September, 2025.

\ yO TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown