Anne Grand’Maison, M.D. v. Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center; Candace...

SIAIES DISTRICF FILED ~Q Sy Pr UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUN 22 2026 ee AOR EH Wy og ER, ORM Sra ANNE GRAND’MAISON, M.D., Plaintiff, v. 23-CV-99 (JLS) (MJR) ROSWELL PARK COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER; CANDACE JOHNSON, Ph.D., in her individual and professional capacities; RENIER BRENTJENS, M.D., Ph.D., in his individual and professional capacities; CARL MORRISON, M.D., DVM, in his individual and professional capacities; JOHN KANE III, M.D., in his individual and professional capacities; and ERROL DOUGLAS, Ph.D., in his individual and professional capacities, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Anne Grand’Maison, M.D., commenced this action on January 31, 2023, alleging a federal Equal Pay Act claim under 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), as well as several state and local law claims relating to her former employment as a Staff Physician at Roswell Park. See Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 12.

Two motions for summary judgment are pending. Defendants and Plaintiff both moved for summary judgment on February 26, 2026. Dkts. 100, 102. Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion, and Defendants replied. Dkts. 113, 117. Defendants opposed Plaintiffs motion, and Plaintiff replied. Dkts. 112, 114. On June 4, 2026, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs sole federal Equal Pay Act claim and decline supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs remaining state law claims. Dkt. 133 at 12-21. He also recommended that this Court deny Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as moot. Id. at 21—22.

Plaintiff did not object to the R&R, but filed a letter on June 17, 2026, which requested that the Court “dismiss her Equal Pay Act claim with prejudice but dismiss her remaining state law claims without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to refile or renew those claims in New York state court.” Dkt. 134. She stated that “the Parties conferred via email and Defendants’ position is that they respectfully request that the Court adopt Magistrate Judge Roemer’s Report and Recommendation.” Id. 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). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). 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).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts Judge Roemer’s recommendation.

Thus, for the reasons in the R&R, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 100) as to Plaintiffs Equal Pay Act claim is GRANTED, and this claim is dismissed with prejudice; the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs remaining state law claims, and these claims are dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to refile or renew those claims in New York state court.

Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 102) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2026 Buffalo, New York \ ie { ) □ | cr * “ JI -SINATRA, JR. at pM TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE