Wescogame v. USA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
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.
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).
Additionally, the Court is in receipt of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (Doc. 18), and Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 20).
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
Randy Redtail Wescogame,
Petitioner,
v.
United States of America,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-24-08088-PCT-SPL
No. CR-06-01077-PCT-SPL-01
ORDER
Case 3:24-cv-08088-SPL Document 22 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific
objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial
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
(9th Cir. 2000).
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.
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.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is
accepted and adopted by the Court;
2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 20) are overruled;
3. That the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (CV-24-08088-PCT-SPL, Doc. 1; CR-06-01077-PCT-SPL, Doc. 84) is
denied and dismissed with prejudice;
4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal are denied because dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable
jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and
5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this
action
Dated this 15th day of December, 2025.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-08088-SPL Document 22 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 2