# Lopez v. Wetzel

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · April 4, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10414544

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 4, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10414544

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE IVAN LOPEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-01819

v.
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.,

Defendant.

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
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 well-
reasoned 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
2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10414544. Public record. Not legal advice.