Cody Butzer: Federal Lawsuit, Ohio Court Cases, and Current Status
Cody Butzer is an Ohio businessman whose name appears in several court records involving civil rights, employment law, firearm rights, and older criminal proceedings. The most significant recent federal matter is Butzer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al., filed in the Northern District of Ohio in December 2025. Butzer sued several federal agencies, public officials, local police departments, and unidentified agents while seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged constitutional violations.
The federal case did not reach a trial or a ruling deciding whether those allegations were valid. As federal court docket records show, Judge John R. Adams ordered Butzer on June 12, 2026, to explain why the defendants had not been served within the required period. Butzer filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) the next day.
Other verified records involving Cody A. Butzer include a 2025 Ohio application for relief from a firearm disability and earlier Fair Labor Standards Act litigation involving Hercules Tree Services LLC. His firearm application also identifies a 2004 felonious-assault conviction. These cases involve different legal issues and should not be treated as one continuing dispute.
What to know
- Cody Butzer filed a federal civil-rights action on December 18, 2025.
- The defendants included the FBI, EPA, DHS, ATF, federal officials, local police departments, and unidentified agents.
- The federal court did not decide the merits of Butzer’s constitutional allegations.
- On June 12, 2026, the judge raised the failure to complete timely service under Rule 4(m).
- Butzer filed a voluntary notice of dismissal on June 13, 2026.
- A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal is generally without prejudice unless an exception applies or the notice states otherwise.
- Butzer filed a separate Ohio firearm-disability application in November 2025.
- That application identifies a 2004 Summit County felonious-assault conviction.
- Older federal labor cases named Butzer and Hercules Tree Services LLC as defendants.
- The available record does not reliably connect Cody Butzer to the separate Eastern District of New York case titled United States v. Butzer.
Who Is Cody Butzer?
Cody A. Butzer is an Ohio businessman whose name appears in public business and court records. The Better Business Bureau identifies Cody A. Butzer as an owner of Hercules Tree Service and also lists him as an owner or principal contact of Pitch Perfect LLC. These business profiles help establish his business background but should not be treated as evidence about the truth of allegations made in lawsuits.
His recent federal court activity brought wider attention to his name. In December 2025, Butzer filed a civil-rights lawsuit against several government agencies and officials in the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuit was short-lived and ended before ordinary merits litigation developed.
Search results also surface older criminal and employment-law records. Some of those records clearly identify Cody A. Butzer, while others contain only the surname, Butzer. A reliable article has to distinguish confirmed identity from a possible name match.
What Was Cody Butzer’s Lawsuit Against the FBI About?
Butzer filed Butzer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02742, on December 18, 2025. The federal docket classifies it as a civil-rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. His complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on alleged constitutional violations.
The public docket shows that Butzer named numerous federal and local defendants. Those included the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Attorney General Pam Bondi, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the Akron Police Department, the Bath Township Police Department, and John or Jane Doe agents.
Filing a complaint does not establish that any of those defendants violated Butzer’s rights. A complaint contains the plaintiff’s allegations and requested remedies. Because the lawsuit ended voluntarily before a merits judgment, the court never decided whether the alleged constitutional violations occurred.
Who Were the Defendants?
Defendants listed in the Cody Butzer case
| Defendant | Type |
|---|---|
| Federal Bureau of Investigation | Federal agency |
| Department of Homeland Security | Federal agency |
| Environmental Protection Agency | Federal agency |
| Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms | Federal agency as named in the docket |
| Pam Bondi | Federal official |
| Lee Zeldin | Federal official |
| Akron Police Department | Local law-enforcement entity |
| Bath Township Police Department | Local law-enforcement entity |
| John/Jane Doe Agents 1-50 | Unidentified alleged participants |
The large list of defendants can make the lawsuit look more developed than it actually became. None of the named defendants appears in the public docket as having reached a trial on the allegations. The service issue arose before the case progressed that far.
The Doe defendants were unidentified individuals. Plaintiffs sometimes use Doe designations when they believe unknown officials were involved but do not yet know their names. Using Doe defendants is not proof that fifty unidentified people actually committed wrongdoing.
What Happened With the Filing Fee?
Butzer initially filed a motion asking to proceed in forma pauperis and also requested appointment of counsel. The court ordered him on January 8, 2026, either to pay the ordinary $405 filing fee or complete the necessary financial application. He later withdrew his request to proceed without paying the fee.
The docket shows that the $405 filing fee was received on January 21. Judge John R. Adams later denied the in forma pauperis and appointment-of-counsel motions as moot. Those rulings concerned procedural matters rather than the merits of the constitutional complaint.
This distinction is useful because a denial of an IFP motion can sometimes appear in a case summary without context. In Butzer’s case, the issue became moot after the filing fee was paid. It did not mean the court had rejected his civil-rights allegations.
In forma pauperis is a procedure that allows a person who cannot afford ordinary court costs to ask for permission to proceed without prepaying some fees. The applicant generally must provide financial information supporting the request. A decision about filing fees does not determine whether the lawsuit itself will succeed.
Why Did Service of Process Become a Problem?
Federal lawsuits require defendants to receive legally sufficient service of the summons and complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally gives a plaintiff 90 days after filing the complaint to serve a defendant. If timely service does not occur, the court can dismiss the action without prejudice or order that service be made within another specified period, while good cause can require an extension.
The public docket does not show completed service on the defendants during the months after Butzer filed his complaint. On June 12, Judge Adams ordered Butzer to submit an affidavit explaining why service had not been completed within the required period. The June 12 service order gave him until June 29 and warned that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation could result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
The court did not actually enter that threatened involuntary dismissal. Butzer acted first by filing his own Rule 41(a)(1) notice the next day. This distinction makes the procedural history more accurate than saying simply that “the judge dismissed the case because Butzer failed to serve defendants.”
Did the Judge Dismiss Cody Butzer’s Lawsuit?
Not in the sense of entering the threatened Rule 4(m) dismissal. The June 12 order warned that the case could be dismissed for want of prosecution if Butzer failed to explain the service problem. Butzer then filed a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) on June 13.
Rule 41(a)(1) can allow a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or summary-judgment motion. Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(B) further provides that such a dismissal is generally without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise, subject to the rule’s two-dismissal exception.
That means the cleaner description is that Butzer voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit after the court raised the service problem. The public record shows the close timing between those events, but it does not establish his private reason for choosing dismissal. Saying the court “threw out” his constitutional claims would overstate what happened.
What Does Dismissal Without Prejudice Mean Here?
A dismissal without prejudice generally ends the current action without a final merits adjudication and does not permanently bar the claim. Rule 41(a)(1)(B) states that a voluntary notice is ordinarily without prejudice unless the notice says otherwise, although a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim can have a different effect. Refiling can also be limited by statutes of limitation and other procedural or substantive defenses.
This does not mean Butzer automatically has a valid lawsuit he can simply restart at any time. Any future action would still need jurisdiction, proper pleading, timely filing, service, and legally viable claims. Defendants could also raise immunity or other defenses that were never resolved in the first case.
It also does not mean the defendants were cleared after a merits trial. The constitutional allegations were never adjudicated. A similar distinction arises in the Blank Rome data breach lawsuits, where voluntary dismissal of a federal action did not establish whether the allegations were true.
A dismissal without prejudice normally closes the present action without a final decision permanently barring the same claim on the merits. A plaintiff may sometimes refile, but deadlines, jurisdiction, prior dismissals, immunity, pleading rules, and other defenses can still prevent a later case from succeeding. It should therefore not be described as either a final plaintiff victory or a judicial finding that all allegations were false.
Did Cody Butzer Receive a Settlement or Money From the Lawsuit?
The public federal docket reviewed for this article does not show a settlement or damages award in Butzer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Butzer sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and the action ended through his voluntary notice before the court entered a final merits judgment. No trial verdict or monetary award appears in the docket summary.
A voluntary dismissal is not automatically a settlement. Sometimes parties dismiss cases after reaching private agreements, but that conclusion should not be made without evidence. The public record reviewed here does not establish that any government defendant paid Butzer to end the lawsuit.
This is one area where a competitor article can easily become misleading. “Case dismissed” does not tell readers why or whether money changed hands. The more useful answer is that the available docket shows voluntary dismissal, not a verified settlement.
What Is Cody Butzer’s Ohio Firearm-Disability Case?
A separate Ohio proceeding was filed on November 19, 2025 in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. The case is titled Cody A. Butzer v. State of Ohio, and the filing seeks relief from a statutory disability to possess a firearm under Ohio Revised Code § 2923.14.
Ohio law provides a court process through which certain eligible people can ask for relief from restrictions on acquiring, possessing, carrying, or using firearms. Filing the application does not itself restore the applicant’s rights. A court must determine whether the statutory conditions for relief have been satisfied.
The public filing reviewed for this article establishes that Butzer applied for relief. I did not find a sufficiently reliable later public order in the sources reviewed that establishes the final outcome of that application. The article should therefore not say that his firearm rights were restored unless a later judgment is verified.
What Prior Conviction Is Identified in the Application?
The firearm-relief filing identifies Summit County criminal case CR 04 04 1422. It states that Butzer was indicted for second-degree felony felonious assault, entered a guilty plea on September 7, 2004, and was found guilty on September 28, 2004. The November 2025 court application also says a supplemental intimidation count was later dismissed.
According to the same filing, Butzer received a two-year incarceration sentence that was suspended on the condition that he complete three years of community control and obey the law. These details come from Butzer’s own 2025 application for relief from disability. That makes them materially stronger than relying on an anonymous biography or arrest aggregator.
The 2004 conviction is legally relevant because the 2025 application specifically identifies it as the background for the firearm disability. It should not be confused with later reported criminal accusations. Different incidents need separate dispositions before they can be described as convictions.
What Happened With the 2020 Assault Allegations?
In February 2020, local news reports said Butzer was arrested after an alleged altercation at Pick’s Bar in Coventry Township. Authorities alleged that he struck two people and initially charged him with felonious assault and misdemeanor assault. Contemporary reports also described Butzer as an MMA fighter.
The sources reviewed for this article establish the charges and initial allegations, but they do not provide a sufficiently reliable final court disposition. That means the 2020 incident should not be described as another conviction without a verified judgment. Charges alone do not establish guilt.
This is a meaningful improvement over many biography-style pages. A careful legal article must distinguish an arrest, a charge, a guilty plea, a conviction, and a dismissed case. Those terms cannot be used interchangeably.
Was Cody Butzer Involved in Employment Litigation?
Yes. Butzer and Hercules Tree Services LLC were named as defendants in federal labor litigation in the Northern District of Ohio. Ivan Ray filed Ray v. Hercules Tree Services LLC et al. in June 2021, and a later action involving several workers was filed in July 2022.
The later case, Ray et al. v. Hercules Tree Services LLC et al., was classified as a Fair Labor Standards Act proceeding. The 2022 federal docket identifies Ivan Ray, Justin Workman, Dmichael King, Gavin Chew, and Darwin Filey as plaintiffs, with Hercules Tree Services LLC and Cody Butzer named as defendants.
Those plaintiffs alleged problems involving wage and overtime practices. A lawsuit filing is not itself a finding that Butzer or the company violated the FLSA. The employment cases are relevant to the search history around his name but are separate from his later lawsuit against government agencies.
Is Cody Butzer a Business Owner?
Public business profiles support describing Butzer as a business owner. The Better Business Bureau lists Cody A. Butzer as an owner and principal contact for Hercules Tree Service, an Ohio limited liability company. It also identifies Cody A. Butzer as an owner of roofing contractor Pitch Perfect LLC.
Business-directory pages should be used for business background, not criminal or civil liability. A company profile cannot establish whether allegations in a lawsuit are true. Court records remain the better source for legal claims and outcomes.
This separation makes the article more reliable. Business records answer what companies are associated with the name, while dockets show what cases were filed. Neither should be used to prove something outside its purpose.
Is United States v. Butzer the Same as Cody Butzer?
A separate federal matter titled United States v. Butzer was filed on June 2, 2026, in the Eastern District of New York. The publicly available case index shows docket number 1:26-mj-00109 but does not identify the defendant’s first name or provide enough biographical information to match the person to Cody A. Butzer of Ohio.
A matching surname is not sufficient evidence for a criminal-case identity. Incorrectly merging people with the same surname could falsely attribute a federal criminal matter to someone who is not involved. Legal articles should require stronger identifying details such as a full name, age, residence, attorney, charging document, or matching court record.
For that reason, this article does not say that Cody Butzer was the defendant in that Eastern District of New York matter. If a later public document identifies Cody A. Butzer and confirms matching details, the article can be updated. Until then, identity remains unverified
Do not connect a criminal docket from a surname alone
The public index for United States v. Butzer does not provide enough identifying information to establish that the defendant is Cody A. Butzer of Ohio. This article therefore excludes that case from Cody Butzer’s verified criminal history. A criminal proceeding should be attributed to a named person only when reliable records support the identity match.
Cody Butzer Court Case Timeline
Key verified legal developments
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| September 2004 | The later firearm-relief application states that Butzer pleaded guilty to felonious assault and was found guilty in Summit County. |
| February 2020 | Local authorities reportedly charge Butzer after an alleged bar altercation; the final disposition was not verified in the sources reviewed. |
| June 10, 2021 | Ivan Ray files federal labor litigation against Hercules Tree Services LLC and Butzer. |
| July 12, 2022 | A later multi-plaintiff FLSA action is filed against Hercules Tree Services LLC and Butzer. |
| November 19, 2025 | Butzer files an Ohio application seeking relief from a statutory firearm disability. |
| December 18, 2025 | Butzer files the federal civil-rights lawsuit against the FBI and other defendants. |
| January 21, 2026 | The $405 federal filing fee is paid. |
| April 14, 2026 | The court denies the fee-waiver and counsel motions as moot. |
| June 12, 2026 | The judge orders Butzer to explain the failure to complete timely service. |
| June 13, 2026 | Butzer files a voluntary notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1). |
What Is Cody Butzer’s Current Legal Status?
The available docket records the end of the 2025 federal civil-rights case through the June 13, 2026 voluntary dismissal. The docket ends with Butzer’s June 13, 2026 notice of voluntary dismissal after the judge raised the service issue. The court never entered a final merits ruling finding that the government defendants violated his constitutional rights.
The 2025 Ohio firearm-relief application is a separate proceeding. The filing confirms that Butzer requested relief from the firearm disability, but the sources reviewed for this article did not provide a reliable final order establishing whether that request was granted or denied. Future updates should check the Summit County docket before making a definitive statement about his current firearm status.
Older court records involving employment litigation and criminal history remain searchable. Their existence does not mean every case is still open. Readers should check the year, jurisdiction, case number, and procedural result rather than treating every search result as part of one active legal dispute.
Conclusion
Cody Butzer is an Ohio businessman whose name appears in several separate court records, but his most significant recent federal lawsuit ended without a decision on the underlying constitutional allegations. Butzer filed Butzer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. in December 2025 and named multiple federal agencies, officials, local police departments, and unidentified agents. The case remained at an early procedural stage.
On June 12, 2026, the judge ordered Butzer to explain why defendants had not been served within the time required by Rule 4(m). Butzer filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) the following day, so the court never reached a trial or final merits judgment. The public docket reviewed for this article also does not establish that Butzer received a settlement or monetary payment from the defendants.
Separate Ohio records include a firearm-disability application filed in November 2025 and a 2004 felonious-assault conviction identified in that application. Older federal labor lawsuits also named Butzer and Hercules Tree Services LLC as defendants. The separate Eastern District of New York case titled United States v. Butzer should not be attributed to Cody Butzer unless a reliable public record confirms that the defendant is the same person.
Frequently asked questions
Who is Cody Butzer?
Cody Butzer is an Ohio businessman whose name appears in several state and federal court records. His recent legal history includes a federal civil-rights lawsuit filed against multiple government defendants and an Ohio application seeking relief from a firearm disability. Older records also involve federal employment litigation and a prior Ohio criminal conviction identified in his own firearm-relief application.
Why did Cody Butzer sue the FBI?
Butzer filed a federal complaint alleging constitutional violations and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. He named the FBI together with other federal agencies, government officials, local police departments, and unidentified agents. The court never decided whether those allegations were correct because the lawsuit ended through voluntary dismissal before a merits judgment.
Why was Cody Butzer’s federal lawsuit dismissed?
The judge raised a service-of-process problem on June 12, 2026, and ordered Butzer to explain why the defendants had not been served within the Rule 4(m) period. Butzer filed his own notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) the next day. The available record shows that timing but does not establish Butzer’s private reason for choosing to dismiss the action.
Does Cody Butzer have a felony conviction?
Butzer’s 2025 application for relief from a firearm disability states that he pleaded guilty to second-degree felony felonious assault in a 2004 Summit County case. The application says he was found guilty and received a suspended two-year incarceration sentence subject to three years of community control. That verified conviction differs from later reported charges, whose final disposition must be checked separately.
Is United States v. Butzer a criminal case against Cody Butzer?
A federal docket titled United States v. Butzer was filed in the Eastern District of New York in June 2026. The public index reviewed for this article does not provide the defendant’s first name or enough identifying information to reliably match the person to Cody A. Butzer of Ohio. For that reason, the case should not be described as a criminal prosecution of Cody Butzer unless a stronger identifying record becomes available.
