UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEORGE IVAN LOPEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.,

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-01819

(MEHALCHICK, J.)

MEMORANDUM 

Pro se prisoner-Plaintiffs George Ivan Lopez, Darien Houser, Gerald Watkins, Ralph 

Stokes, Jose Uderra, and Richard A. Poplawski (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this class 

action by filing a complaint on October 26, 2021, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against 

Defendants John E. Wetzel, Jeffery A. Beard, Martin F. Horn, and Pennsylvania Department 

of Corrections (“DOC”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 1). Presently before the Court is

the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 172), dated 

December 20, 2023. Judge Carlson recommends that the Court sever Plaintiffs’ claims into 

six separate complaints pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (Doc. 172). On 

January 12, 2024, Houser filed an untimely objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

(Doc. 175). In his objection, Plaintiff Houser contends that Magistrate Judge Carlson erred 

in concluding that the Court should sever this case because Plaintiffs are not in “open 

disagreement” with each other, and their claims involve the same issues. (Doc. 175, at 2).

However, based on the Court’s review of the record that objection will be OVERULED and 

Judge Carlson’s report will be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. 

When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of a magistrate 

judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of the report to which objections 

Case 3:21-cv-01819-KM Document 191 Filed 04/04/24 Page 1 of 2
2

are made. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although 

the standard of review is de novo, the district court “may also, in the exercise of sound judicial 

discretion, rely on the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Bynum 

v. Colvin, 198 F. Supp 3d 434, 437 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (citing United Stated v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 

667, 676 (1980)). 

After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error in Judge Carlson’s conclusion that 

Plaintiffs’ claims should be severed. The Court finds Judge Carlson’s analysis to be wellreasoned and supported by the applicable law insofar as he concludes that the claims in the 

complaint do not appear appropriate for joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 as Plaintiffs’ 

individual claims do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions. Furthermore, the Court agrees that severing Plaintiffs’ claims into six separate 

lawsuits will foster judicial efficiency and promote justice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

Based on the foregoing, Report and Recommendation of Judge Carlson, (Doc. 172), 

will be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Plaintiff Houser’s objections, (Doc. 175), will be 

OVERRULED. Plaintiffs’ complaints will be SEVERED. George Lopez’s claims shall 

proceed in this action, No. 3:21-CV-01819, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to open 

new civil actions for each of the remaining Plaintiffs. The above-captioned action is 

REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for all further pretrial proceedings including 

Orders or Reports and Recommendations on any pending motions. (Doc. 167; Doc. 173; 

Doc. 182). An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: April 4, 2024 s/ Karoline Mehalchick 

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:21-cv-01819-KM Document 191 Filed 04/04/24 Page 2 of 2