Julio Cesar Prado v. D. Christensen, Warden

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 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.)

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:! 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 Glenn T. Suddaby ; U.S. District Judge 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.” /d.; 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).