Cordova v. Long

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 23-cv-00081-PAB-KAS
CHRISTOPHER J. CORDOVA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY LONG,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Filing Objection
to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Out of Time [Docket No. 62]. The Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge Kathyrn A. Starnella recommended that
plaintiff Christopher J. Cordova’s claims be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), for failure to serve the defendant named in the
complaint. Docket No. 59 at 10. Judge Starnella’s recommendation recounted her
various orders explaining to Mr. Cordova his need to provide sufficient information to
enable service of process upon the named defendant, who is, according to the
operative complaint, a physician who treated Mr. Cordova at the Sterling Correctional
Facility (“SCF”) operated by the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”). See
Docket No. 59 at 1-5; Docket No. 13 at 12, ¶ 19. With the limited information plaintiff
Case No. 1:23-cv-00081-PAB-KAS Document 63 filed 02/04/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

2
did provide, Judge Starnella directed the United States Marshal, on two different
occasions, to attempt service. Docket No. 59 at 3. On both occasions, the Deputy
Marshals assigned to effectuate service determined that the person located at the
address provided by Mr. Cordova was not the defendant. Id. Those persons indicated
that they had never worked as physicians at SCF. Id.
On January 10, 2025, Mr. Cordova claimed that the correct defendant was
actually “Jerome Long,” although named in the operative complaint as “Jeremy Long.”
Id. at 5 (citing Docket No. 57 at 1-2). Judge Starnella explained that, because the
operative complaint named “Jeremy Long,” rather than “Jerome Long,” efforts to serve
anyone named Jerome Long would not be appropriate. Id. at 8. Moreover, Judge
Starnella noted that the address Mr. Cordova provided for “Jerome Long” was the same
address for the “Jeremy Long” previously identified by Mr. Cordova and determined by
the Deputy Marshals to have disclaimed working as a physician at SCF. Id.
Judge Starnella’s January 29, 2025 recommendation stated that objections to the
recommendation were due within 14 days after service of the recommendation. Id. at
11. Although the recommendation was filed on January 29, 2025, the Clerk of the Court
served the recommendation on January 30, 2025. Thus, objections were due on
February 13, 2025. On February 19, 2025, the Court, having received no objections,
reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation and, after finding no clear error on the
face of the record, accepted the recommendation and dismissed Mr. Cordova’s claims
without prejudice. Docket No. 60 at 1-2. On February 20, 2025, the Court entered final
judgment and closed the case. Docket No. 61.
Case No. 1:23-cv-00081-PAB-KAS Document 63 filed 02/04/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

3
On March 6, 2025, the Court received a motion from Mr. Cordova, dated March
1, 2025, requesting leave to file an objection to the recommendation out of time. Docket
No. 62. Mr. Cordova attached to the motion a copy of his objection. See Docket No.
62-1. Mr. Cordova asks the Court to allow the untimely objection because, when he
received the Court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, SCF was
on “lockdown.” Docket No. 62 at 1. Mr. Cordova states that, during the lockdown, “no
movement by inmates was allowed within the facility and by extension thereof, no
inmate was allowed any access to Facility Law Library resources.” Id. Mr. Cordova
further explains that, during this lockdown period, he could not access the “jailhouse
lawyer” upon whom he relies for assistance in drafting court filings. Id. at 1-2.
II. ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) states that, “[w]hen an act may or must be
done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on
motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable
neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). In analyzing whether the movant has
demonstrated “excusable neglect” under Rule 6, the Court considers four factors: (1)
the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party; (2) the length of the delay and its
potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether
it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in
good faith. Perez v. El Tequila, LLC, 847 F.3d 1247, 1253 (10th Cir. 2017).
Mr. Cordova does not discuss the relevant Rule 6 factors. He does not disclaim
receiving a copy of the magistrate judge’s recommendation. He states only that
restrictive prison conditions were in place when he received the Court’s order accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Docket No. 62 at 1. However, the Court
Case No. 1:23-cv-00081-PAB-KAS Document 63 filed 02/04/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

4
issued that order six days after the deadline to file an objection. Even if Mr. Cordova
meant to state that the lockdown conditions were in place at the time he received the
magistrate judge’s recommendation, rather than the Court’s order accepting the
recommendation, he does not explain why, despite the lockdown, he could not have
filed a motion requesting an extension of time before the February 13, 2025 deadline for
objections passed. Thus, the Court discerns no reason that would justify granting Mr.
Cordova’s untimely request for an extension of time and will deny the motion.
Even if the Court were to consider Mr. Cordova’s objection, it would overrule it.
To the extent that Mr. Cordova’s objection addresses the service-of-process issues
identified in the recommendation, it is only to 1) complain about the efforts of one of the
Deputy Marshals and 2) to reassert that he means to sue “Jerome Long”, not “Jeremy
Long.” See Docket No. 62-1 at 1-5; see also Docket No. 62-2 at 1-6. As Judge
Starnella explained in her recommendation, Jerome Long is not named as a defendant
in the operative complaint, and there is “no reason” to serve a person not named in the
complaint. See Docket No. 59 at 8. Moreover, as Judge Starnella explained, the Court
can only effectuate service for a plaintiff when the plaintiff has provided sufficient
information as to where the United States Marshals Service would find and serve the
defendant. Id. at 1 (citing Hill v. Ortiz, No. 07-cv-00571-LTB-CBS, 2008 WL 2020289,
at *6 (D. Colo. May 9, 2008)). Mr. Cordova, however, provides the same address for
“Jerome Long” that he previously provided for “Jeremy Long.” Id. at 5 (citing Docket No.
57 at 1-2). A Deputy Marshal has determined that the individual found at this address
states that he never worked as a physician at SCF. See Docket No. 54 at 2. Although
Mr. Cordova is unhappy with the Deputy Marshal’s service attempt, see Docket No. 62-
Case No. 1:23-cv-00081-PAB-KAS Document 63 filed 02/04/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

5
1 at 1, Mr. Cordova has failed to rebut the Deputy Marshal’s determination. See In re
Marriage of Thacker, 701 P.2d 871, 872 (Colo. App. 1985); Sikhs for Justice v. Badal,
736 F.3d 743, 746-47 (7th Cir. 2013).
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Filing Objection to Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Out of Time [Docket No. 62] is DENIED.
DATED February 4, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
_________________________________________________________	___________________________	____	___	_________________	_____
Case No. 1:23-cv-00081-PAB-KAS Document 63 filed 02/04/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5