Randy Redtail Wescogame v. United States of America

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Randy Redtail Wescogame, ) No. CV-24-08088-PCT-SPL ) No. CR-06-01077-PCT-SPL-01 ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) ) ORDER United States of America, ) ) 13 Respondent. ) ) ) 15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) (“R&R”) entered in this matter by the assigned Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Motion be denied and dismissed with prejudice in both above listed matters.

18 The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1; see also Doc. 2), the Response from Respondents (Doc. 11; see also Doc. 13), and the Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 17).

21 Additionally, the Court is in receipt of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18), and Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 20).

23 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It | follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 2| objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 3| U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 4} economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or | arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s | decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 7| (9th Cir. 2000).

8 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently | developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have | been thoroughly considered.

11 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches | the same conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge. The R&R will be adopted in full.

13 | Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED: 15 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is | accepted and adopted by the Court; 17 2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 20) are overruled; 18 3. That the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 19| U.S.C. § 2255 (CV-24-08088-PCT-SPL, Doc. 1; CR-06-01077-PCT-SPL, Doc. 84) is | denied and dismissed with prejudice; 21 4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis | appeal are denied because dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable | jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and 24 5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action 26 Dated this 15th day of December, 2025.

27 - 28 iL