Charles and Jennifer Jack v. JSR Medical Co., LTD.

Jul 21, 2026
1:25-cv-00792

DECISION & ORDER

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.

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 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

Notes

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.
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.