govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-4_25-cv-01907-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
HOUSTON DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 
§ 
§ 
§ 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
NNWOOD PHARMACY LLC, 
CHERYL BREW GREENLEAF, 
AND WENDELL KIRK 
GREENLEAF, 
Defendants. 
§ Civil Action No. H-25-1907 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
ORDER 
Pending before the Court is The United States' Motion for Partial Summary 
Judgment (Document No. 20). Having considered the motion, submissions, 
applicable law, and lack 
of response filed by Defendants in violation of Local Rule 
7.4, the Court determines that Plaintiffs motion should be granted. 
I. BACKGROUND 
This is a federal action to recover civil penalties for alleged violations of the 
Controlled Substances Act. Defendants Cheryl, Brew Greenleaf and Wendell Kirk 
Greenleaf owned and operated a DEA registered Retail Pharmacy, Defendant 
Nnwood Pharmacy LLC ("Nnwood"), formerly located at 8240 Antoine Drive, Suite 
108, Houston, Texas, 77088. The United States of America (hereinafter "the 
Government") contends that between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, Nnwood 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 11
dispensed a total of 3,133 prescriptions totaling 26,317 dosage units of controlled 
substances.1 Of those doses, approximately 62% were highly diverted controlled 
substances including: Hydrocode, Promethazine with Codeine, and Carisoprodol.2 
After an analysis of this data, the DEA executed an Administrative Inspection 
Warrant and conducted an audit for controlled substances at Nnwood on July 16, 
2021.3 The Government alleges that the results of the audit revealed a failure to 
maintain complete and accurate records in violation of 21 C.F.R. § 1304.21(a) and 
21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5). The Government further alleges that the audit also revealed 
significant inventory discrepancies of numerous controlled substances in violation 
of 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5). The Government also alleges that Nnwood dispensed 
numerous dosage units of various Schedule II through V controlled substances from 
practitioners located hundreds of miles away from the pharmacy and dispensed 
multiple dosages of Schedule II Hydrocodone and Schedule IV Carisoprodol pills to 
numerous male customers whose prescriptions originated from doctors specializing 
in Obstetrics and Gynecology care according to their Texas Medical Board licenses. 
1 See The United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Document No. 20 at 
4. 
2 
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 11
Based on the foregoing, on April 28, 2025, the Government filed suit against 
Defendants in this matter, seeking: (1) civil penalties for unlawful dispensing of 
controlled substances; (2) civil penalties for failing to make, keep, or furnish records 
and reports; and (3) a permanent injunction to restrain future violations.4 On March 
31, 2026, the Government filed the pending motion for summary judgment, 
contending that no genuine issue of material fact exists in this matter.5 A review of 
the record in this matter reveals that Defendants have failed to file a response to the 
Government's motion for summary judgment either by the deadline required under 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the date of this Order. 
IL STANDARD OF REVIEW 
Summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine dispute as to any 
material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the 
nonmovant. Coleman v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997). 
Initially, the movant bears the burden of presenting the basis for the motion and the 
elements of the causes of action upon which the nonmovant will be unable to 
establish a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 
4 See The Government's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 1-11. 
5 See The Government's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Document No. 20 at 
1-20. 
3 
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 3 of 11
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 4 of 11
nonmovant, the nonmoving party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of 
its pleadings but must respond by setting forth specific facts indicating a genuine 
issue for trial." Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 2000). 
The Court may not grant summary judgment based merely on the procedural 
failure to respond. Hibernia Nat' l Bank v. Administracion Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 
776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory 
committee's note to 2010 amendments. Rather, the movant must bear its initial 
burden to show that no issue of material fact exists, and that the movant is entitled 
to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). If issues of material fact 
clearly exist within the summary judgment record, then summary judgment is 
improper. See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 440 (5th Cir. 
2000) ("Before the non-moving party is required to produce evidence in opposition 
to the motion, the moving party must first satisfy its obligation of demonstrating that 
there are no factual issues warranting trial." (quoting Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 
543 (5th Cir. 1993)). 
III. LAW & ANALYSIS 
The Government moves for summary judgment, contending there is no 
genuine issue of material fact for a jury to consider in this matter as to whether the 
Defendants violated the Federal Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") in operating the 
Nnwood Pharmacy. The Government contends that Defendants have violated the 
5 
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 5 of 11
CSA by: (1) unlawfully dispensing controlled substances, and; (2) failing to make, 
keep, or furnish records and reports. Defendants did not respond to the 
Government's motion for summary judgment, failing to rebut or offer evidence to 
counter the Government's contentions. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, failure to respond 
is taken as a representation of no opposition. S.D. Tex. Local R. 7 .4. Regardless of 
Defendant's procedural failure to respond, the Court will consider, in tum, each 
alleged violation of the CSA. 
A. Unlawful Dispensing of Controlled Substances 
The Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") created a closed regulatory system 
designed to monitor and account for controlled substances from the point of 
importation or manufacture through their distribution to the ultimate end user. To 
prevent diversion, the Act regulates individuals and entities involved in the 
manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of controlled substances and generally 
requires that anyone handling such substances be registered with the DEA unless 
exempted by regulation. See 21 U.S.C. § 822(a)(l)-(2). The CSA further provides 
that controlled substances may be dispensed only pursuant to a valid prescription 
issued for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice. 
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 829(a)(l) and 842(a)(l). The Act also requires that all persons and 
businesses who dispense controlled substances comply with various recordkeeping 
6 
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 6 of 11
and other requirements designed to prevent the diversion of controlled substances. 
See 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5). 
More specific to the present case, the Government contends that Defendants 
violated 21 U.S.C. §§ 829(a)(l). Section 829(a)(l) of the CSA prohibits any 
manufacturer, distributor, or dispenser from distributing or dispensing a controlled 
substance without a valid prescription. See United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 
135-36, n.11 (1975). The prescription must be issued by an individual medical 
practitioner who is authorized to prescribe controlled substances under the laws of 
the state in which they are licensed to practice. 21 C.F.R. § 1306.03(a). For a 
prescription to be considered valid, it must contain the valid DEA registration 
number of the practitioner. 21 C.F.R. § 1306.0S(a). In addition to a valid DEA 
registration, the prescription must be issued "for a legitimate medical purpose by an 
individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice." 21 
C.F.R. § 1306.04(a). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has 
made clear that the United States may establish a violation of § 1306.04(a) by 
proving that the defendant either acted without a legitimate medical purpose or acted 
outside the usual course of professional practice. See United States v. Lamartiniere, 
625, 639 (5th Cir. 2024). 
Here, the Government contends that Defendants failed to ensure that the 
prescriptions they were dispensing were legitimate. The Government notes for the 
7 
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 7 of 11
Court summary judgment evidence from a July 21, 2021, onsite inspection 
conducted by the DEA, in which the DEA seized ninety-nine fraudulent Schedule II 
through IV prescriptions dispensed between January 29, 2018 and June 19, 2020, in 
violation of the CSA. 6• The Government also notes for the Court the owner of 
Nnwood's deposition in which Greenleaf acknowledged that she knew that there 
were significant red flags associated with the fraudulent prescriptions, including: 
prescriptions written under invalid DEA registration numbers; prescriptions 
allegedly written by practitioners hundreds of miles from Nnwood; and prescriptions 
written to numerous male customers whose prescriptions originated from doctors 
specializing in Gynecology care. 7 The Government further notes for the Court that 
Greenleaf admitted under oath that she was aware of the required Texas State Board 
of Pharmacy Red Flag Checklist, and continued to issue prescriptions with .red flags 
anyway, regardless of the risks the prescriptions posed. 8 The Government contends 
that there is no genuine issue of material fact that • Greenleaf knew of her 
responsibility under the CSA to· ensure that she filled only legitimate controlled 
6 See id. at 11-14. 
7 See The Government's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Document No. 20, 
Exhibit Q at 36:11-18; 43: 16-20 (Deposition of Defendant Cheryl Brew Greenleaf) 
[hereinafter Deposition of Defendant Cheryl Brew GreenleafJ. 
8 Deposition of Defendant Cheryl Brew Greenleaf, supra note 7 at 45:7-21; 46:24-
48:12. 
8 
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 8 of 11
substance prescriptions. Defendants offer no rebuttal. Having considered the 
foregoing, submissions, and applicable law, the Court finds that summary judgment 
in favor of the Government is proper with respect to their claim that Defendants 
violated the CSA by unlawfully dispensing controlled substances. The Court now 
turns to consider whether Defendants engaged in proper record keeping in 
compliance with the CSA. 
B. Recordkeeping Requirements under the CSA Substances 
The Government alleges that Defendants violated 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5) by 
failing to comply with the statute's recordkeeping requirements. The CSA requires 
that each registrant distributing or dispensing controlled substances must adhere to 
strict recordkeeping requirements and maintain the records for a period of two years. 
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 827(b)(3) and 842(a)(5); 21 C.F.R. § 1304.04(a). Specifically, 
DEA registrants who dispense controlled substances pursuant to prescriptions are 
required to keep and maintain complete and accurate records concerning any and all 
controlled substances ordered, received, stored, and dispensed. See 21 U.S.C. § 
827(a)(l)(b); 21 C.F.R. § 1304.2l(a). 
Here, the Governments contends that the DEA audit of Nnwood that occurred 
on July 16, 2021, revealed that Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate 
records in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5) and 21 C.F.R. § 1304.21(a). More 
specifically, the Governments notes for the Court that the Texas State Board of 
9 
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 9 of 11
Pharmacy flagged Nnwood for violations. of having mislabeled drug stock, 
unavailable records, and incomplete computer records in both 2018 and 2014. The 
Government further notes that in 2021, DEA investigators requested Schedule II 
Controlled Substances Ordering Systems forms ranging from May 31, 2019, through 
July 16, 2021 from Defendants, which they were unable to produce as required by 
law.9 The Government further contends that Greenleaf was aware of her obligations 
under the CSA and negligently failed to keep ac~urate inventory records of 
Nnwood's controlled substances, evidenced by: (1) Greenleafs own deposition 
where she testified to her knowledge ofrecordkeeping requirements; (2) Greenleafs 
sole responsibility at the pharmacy of fulfilling prescriptions; and (3) Greenleaf s 
own admission that she personally and directly reported prescriptions for controlled 
substances to the Texas State Board· of Pharmacy herself. 10 Defendants offer no 
rebuttal. 
Having considered the foregoing, submissions, and applicable law, the Court 
finds that there is no· genuine issue of material fact with respect to Defendants' 
failure to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of the CSA. Thus, the Court 
finds that summary judgment in favor of the Government is proper. 
9 See The Government's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Document No. 20, 
ExhibitE. 
10 Deposition of Defendant Cheryl Brew Greenleaf, supra note 7 at 103:11-104:1; 
06:14-109: 19). 
10 
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 10 of 11
Accordingly, having considered the Government's pending motion for 
summary judgment, Defendants' lack of any rebuttal or response, and the applicable 
law, the Court finds that Defendants fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact to 
survive the Government's motion, and thus, determines summary judgment is proper 
in this matter. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby 
ORDERS that The United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 
(Document No. 20) is GRANTED. The Court further 
ORDERS that all trial settings are hereby VACATED. The Court further 
ORDERS that civil money penalties shall be awarded to the United States as 
provided for in 21 U.S.C. §§ 842(c)(l)(A) and (c)(l)(B)(i). The United States must 
provide the Court with a memorandum and corresponding proposed order detailing 
the penalty provisions and applicable regulations and case law for determining the 
appropriate penalty amounts NO LATER THAN JULY 20, 2026. 
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this _1! day of June, 2026. 
11 
DAVID HITTNER 
United States District Judge 
Case 4:25-cv-01907     Document 24     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 11 of 11

Passage view · GavelSight