Schulz v. Warden

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
DONALD SCHULZ,
Petitioner,
-v- 	9:23-CV-295 (AJB/TWD)
WARDEN,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
DONALD SCHULZ
Petitioner, Pro Se
21962-044
RRM ST. Louis
Residential Reentry Office
1222 Spruce Street, Suite 6.101
St. Louis, MO 63101
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 	KAREN F. LESPERANCE, ESQ.
Attorneys for Respondent
445 Broadway, Room 218
Albany, NY 12207
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On March 6, 2023, pro se petitioner Donald Schulz (“petitioner”) filed this petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. No. 1. Briefly stated, petitioner seeks
habeas relief based on the U.S. Bureau of Prison’s denial of his application to have Federal Time
Credits (“FTC”) applied to reduce his 156-month term of imprisonment in accordance with the
First Step Act (“FSA”). Id.
Case 9:23-cv-00295-AJB-TWD Document 17 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
The petition was initially assigned to Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes, who
referred the matter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks. After petitioner paid the
filing fee, Dkt. No. 3, Judge Dancks ordered the Warden (“respondent”) of the federal facility
where petitioner was then being held to respond. Dkt. No. 4. Thereafter, respondent opposed
habeas relief, Dkt. No. 10, petitioner replied, Dkt. No. 13, and the matter was reassigned to this
Court for all further proceedings, Dkt. No. 14.
On December 31, 2025, Judge Dancks advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”)
that the petition be denied and dismissed. Dkt. No. 16. As Judge Dancks explained, petitioner
had likely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies but, even on the merits, he had failed to
demonstrate that he is entitled to an application of FSA time credits. Id.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired.
See Dkt. No. 16. Upon review for clear error, Judge Dancks’s R&R is accepted and will be
adopted. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ACCEPTED;
2. The petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and
3. No Certificate of Appealability will be issued.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment
accordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 9:23-cv-00295-AJB-TWD Document 17 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 2