The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHARLES JACK and JENNIFER JACK,
Plaintiffs,
v. 25-CV-792-LJV-MJR
DECISION & ORDER
JSR MEDICAL CO., LTD. et al.,
Defendants.
On July 16, 2025, the plaintiffs, Charles Jack and Jennifer Jack, commenced this
action in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County. Docket Item 1-2 at 5.1 The
complaint names four defendants—JSR Medical Co., Ltd.; Mark Falvo, M.D.; Jeffrey
Visco, M.D.; and WCG-IRB, LLC (“WCG-IRB”)2—and raises claims arising from Charles
Jack’s participation in a clinical trial for an experimental medical device called the
Colorectal Balloon Tube. See generally id. at 5-33. On August 28, 2025, WCG-IRB
removed the action to this Court.3 Following removal, the case was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket Item 6.
1 Page numbers in docket citations refer to ECF pagination.
2 WCG-IRB notes that it was incorrectly named in the complaint as WCG
Institutional Review Board. See Docket Item 1 at 1. The Clerk of the Court shall correct
the electronic docket to reflect that defendant’s correct name.
3 The case originally was assigned to United States District Judge John L.
Sinatra, Jr.; after he recused himself on June 15, 2026, it was reassigned to this Court.
See Docket Item 21.
On September 4, 2025, the plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court,
Docket Item 7, and on September 29, 2025, Falvo, Visco, and WCG-IRB responded.
Docket Items 8 (WCG-IRB’s response) and 9 (Falvo and Visco’s response). On
October 21, 2025, Judge Roemer heard oral argument, Docket Item 16, and requested
further briefing on certain issues, see id. The plaintiffs, Docket Item 17, and WCG-IRB,
Docket Item 18, submitted that supplemental briefing on November 4, 2025, and WCG-
IRB then responded to the plaintiffs’ supplemental brief, Docket Item 19. 4
On May 19, 2026, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
finding that the plaintiffs' motion to remand should be denied. Docket Item 20. The
parties did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so now has expired. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of
a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court must
review de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party
objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636
nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the
recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless has
reviewed Judge Roemer’s R&R as well as the parties’ submissions to him. Based on
4 As Judge Roemer noted, as of the date of oral argument on the motion to
remand, defendant JSR Medical Co., Ltd., had not yet been served. See Docket Item
20 at 2 n.3.
that review and the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts
Judge Roemer’s recommendation to deny the plaintiffs' motion.
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case to state court, Docket Item 7, is DENIED. The case is referred back to
Judge Roemer for further proceedings consistent with the referral order of September 3,
2025, Docket Item 6.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 21, 2026
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE