Case Explained: Courtney Morgan Plaintiff— v. Mary Chapman; John Kopacz Defendants—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-29 The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Mary Chapman and John Kopacz on most claims, but reversed and remanded the case regarding one specific claim against Officer Kopacz. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff Morgan leave to file a belated response to the motions for summary judgment and in adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation; Morgan waived his right to challenge the Magistrate Judge’s procedural orders by failing to object to them in the district court as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Regarding the merits, the court applied the qualified immunity standard, which requires determining whether a constitutional right was violated and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. The court affirmed summary judgment for Chapman on her due process claim because Morgan failed to provide evidence rebutting her assertion that she did not fabricate evidence, and affirmed summary judgment for Chapman on her unreasonable search claim because a reasonable officer could have believed Morgan was operating an unregistered pain management clinic based on prescription data. The court also affirmed summary judgment for Kopacz on the unreasonable seizure claim because Morgan failed to identify a genuine dispute of material fact regarding false statements in offense reports. However, the court reversed summary judgment for Kopacz on his unreasonable search claim. The court found a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the administrative search was pretextual for criminal prosecution. Evidence showed significant coordination between Kopacz’s pre-existing criminal investigation and the administrative search, including Kopacz requesting TMB files after the search which were subsequently used to bring criminal charges. Because it is clearly established that an administrative search cannot be pretextual, and credibility determinations regarding this issue are jury functions, the case must proceed on this claim. The practical consequence is that the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings limited to Kopacz’s unreasonable search claim, while the other claims against both defendants remain dismissed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.