Prado v. Christensen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
JULIO CESAR PRADO,
Petitioner,
9:23-CV-0341
v. 	(GTS/DJS)
D. CHRISTENSEN, Warden,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
JULIO CESAR PRADO, 32653-069
Petitioner, Pro Se
Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 900
Ray Brook, New York 12977
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 	KAREN FOSTER LESPERANCE, ESQ.
Counsel for Respondent 	Assistant United States Attorney
James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse
445 Broadway, Room 218
Albany, New York 12207
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding filed by Julio Cesar Prado
(“Petitioner”) against David Christensen (“Respondent”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is the
Report-Recommendation of former Chief United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks
recommending that Petitioner’s Petition be denied and dismissed and that a certificate of
appealability be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). (Dkt. No. 12.) The parties have not
filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired.
(See generally Docket Sheet.)
Case 9:23-cv-00341-GTS-DJS Document 15 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 2

After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-
Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. (Dkt. No. 12.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is
DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall not be issued, because Petitioner has
not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2).
Dated: February 25, 2026
Syracuse, New York
1 	When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-
recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes:
1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.;
see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995)
(Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which
no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Case 9:23-cv-00341-GTS-DJS Document 15 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 2