Copelin v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MEAGAN T. COPELIN,
Plaintiff,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-04502
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Meagan T. Copelin proceeds here pro se. She
filed this lawsuit, asserting employment-related claims
against Defendant Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services for failure to accommodate, retaliation,
hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and
unequal treatment. Dkt 1. The matter was referred for
disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. Dkt 4.
Pending is a motion by Defendant to dismiss under
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Dkt 6.
Judge Ho recommends that the motion to dismiss be
granted because Plaintiff’s disability-based claims aren’t
actionable under Title VII and sovereign immunity bars
her ADA claims. Dkt 14 at 5. But she also granted Plaintiff
leave to amend her complaint because such allegations
could be construed as claims under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act. Id at 8. Plaintiff timely filed her
amended complaint on July 27, 2026. Dkt 15.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04502 Document 16 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 14.
The motion to dismiss by Defendant Texas Department
of Family and Protective Services is GRANTED. Dkt 6.
The claims by Plaintiff Meagan T. Copelin under Title
VII are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Her claims under the ADA are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
The first amended complaint is now the operative
pleading in this matter.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on July 30, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04502 Document 16 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2