UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

MICHAEL FARROW, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

TULUPIA, Officer; RAMIREZ, Officer; 

EDLIN BARRAZA, Officer; 

DEANGELIS, Officer; SNELLING, 

Officer; BEHRINGER, Officer; RIVAS, 

Officer; HULEN, Officer; MARTINEZ, 

Officer; OTT, Officer; WELT, Officer; 

POLAMIREZ, Officer; GOMEZ, Officer; 

HOUSTON, Officer; COSTA, Officer; 

KIM HURT, Nurse; LOPEZ, Nurse; 

DURMOLA, Nurse; GEORGE 

BRAUCHLER; FIELDS, Deputy Director, 

Arapahoe County District Attorney, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 21-1027 

(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-02533-LTB-GPG) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before McHUGH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

January 31, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-1027 Document: 010110638864 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 1
2 

 Michael Farrow, a pro se Colorado prisoner, appeals from a district court order 

denying reconsideration of its order dismissing his civil-rights complaint. Exercising 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.1

BACKGROUND

 In September 2019, Farrow sued detention officers, nurses, and district attorneys 

for conduct that occurred in 2015 while he was incarcerated in the Aurora, Colorado 

Municipal Detention Center. A magistrate judge screened the complaint, noted various 

pleading defects, and directed Farrow, who was then incarcerated at the Sterling 

Correctional Facility, to file an amended complaint. In February 2020, Farrow filed a 

notice of address change indicating he had been transferred to the Buena Vista 

Correctional Complex (BVCC) in Buena Vista, Colorado. But he did not file an 

amended complaint. 

 On March 24, 2020, a magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint 

without prejudice because it lacked a short and plain statement showing Farrow’s 

1

 Farrow did not file a notice of appeal from the district court’s order denying 

reconsideration within thirty days of the order’s entry. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A) (providing that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within thirty 

days of the order or judgment’s entry). But he subsequently filed a motion to reopen 

the time to appeal along with a notice of appeal, and he asked the district court to 

process the notice once it had addressed his motion. The district court granted the 

motion and reopened the time to appeal. See id. 4(a)(6) (allowing the district court to 

reopen the time to appeal for 14 days if, among other things, the motion to reopen is 

filed within 180 days after the order or judgment is entered). Farrow’s notice of 

appeal then became effective, conferring jurisdiction on this court. See N. Am. 

Specialty Ins. Co. v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 527 F.3d 1033, 1039-40 (10th Cir. 2008) 

(holding that a district court’s grant of a Rule 4(a)(5) motion to extend the appeal 

period validated a previously filed notice of appeal). 

Appellate Case: 21-1027 Document: 010110638864 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 2
3 

entitlement to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Specifically, the complaint provided 

only conclusory allegations, failed to identify the defendants’ personal participation in 

alleged constitutional violations, appeared barred by the statute of limitations and the 

doctrine of prosecutorial immunity, and identified no basis for municipal liability. The 

district court mailed the recommendation to Farrow at the Buena Vista Correctional 

Facility (BVCF), which is one of three facilities at BVCC and has the same address. 

 The next day, on March 25, Farrow filed a motion seeking appointed counsel. 

Also, he indicated he had been transferred on March 17 to the Centennial Correctional 

Facility for mental-health treatment and he needed a stay of the proceedings. 

 Because Farrow was no longer at BVCF, the postal service returned the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to the court as undeliverable. On May 4, the district court 

denied Farrow’s request for a stay and appointment of counsel but gave him an additional 

thirty days to object to the recommendation. The court mailed both the order extending 

time and the magistrate judge’s recommendation to BVCF, as the Colorado Department 

of Corrections’ inmate-locator website indicated he had returned there. 

 Farrow next filed a motion requesting a summary of the court’s actions, stating he 

had not received any court document since January 2020. He also provided a notice-ofaddress change, dated May 7, confirming his return to BVCF. On May 14, the district 

court granted Farrow’s request and mailed a copy of the docket to his BVCF address. 

 On June 16, the district court noted that Farrow had not filed an objection to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation. The district court then adopted the recommendation 

and dismissed Farrow’s complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8. 

Appellate Case: 21-1027 Document: 010110638864 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 3
4 

 On August 7, Farrow filed a “Motion to Alter Judgement [sic],” seeking 

reconsideration of the order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and 

dismissing his complaint. R. at 120. He stated in an accompanying affidavit that he had 

not received the recommendation and that the last document he received was a February 

2020 notification that the court had filed his notice of address change. 

 The district court construed Farrow’s motion as seeking relief under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b),2 and it denied the motion for two reasons. First, the court ruled that Farrow’s 

allegations in his affidavit were conclusory and insufficient to rebut the presumption that 

he had received the magistrate judge’s March 2020 recommendation. The court 

explained that although the recommendation had initially been returned as undeliverable, 

it was resent to his BVCF address on May 4 along with the order extending the response 

time, and those documents were not returned by the postal service. Nor were any other 

court documents returned as undeliverable. Second, the court noted that Farrow failed to 

challenge any of the recommendation’s findings or conclusions. Thus, the district court 

determined that Farrow presented no extraordinary circumstance to warrant vacating its 

order dismissing his complaint. 

2

 “A litigant seeking reconsideration must file a motion to alter or amend 

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), or a motion seeking relief from judgment 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F.3d 1175, 1178 n.2 

(10th Cir. 2010). Rule 60(b) is the appropriate vehicle for reconsideration if the 

motion was filed more than 28 days after the judgment’s entry. Id. at 1178 nn.2 & 3. 

Appellate Case: 21-1027 Document: 010110638864 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 4
5 

DISCUSSION

 We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of 

discretion. See Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300, 1306 (10th Cir. 2016). “We will not 

reverse the district court’s decision on a Rule 60(b) motion unless that decision is 

arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and may only be granted in 

exceptional circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Farrow is 

pro se, “we construe his pleadings liberally, but we do not act as his advocate.” Ford v. 

Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1178 (10th Cir. 2008). 

 Farrow argues the district court erred by concluding he failed to show non-receipt 

of the magistrate judge’s recommendation. He contends that his affidavit, by itself, 

established non-receipt. We disagree. 

 “A rebuttable presumption of receipt . . . arise[s] on evidence that a properly 

addressed piece of mail is placed in the care of the postal service.” Witt v. Roadway 

Express, 136 F.3d 1424, 1429-30 (10th Cir. 1998). Farrow does not argue that the district 

court mailed the recommendation to the wrong address on May 4. Indeed, the district 

court mailed the recommendation to his BVCF address after checking the inmate-locator 

website, and Farrow prepared a notice of address change reflecting BVCF as his address 

only a few days later. Unlike the initial mailing of the recommendation in March 2020, 

the recommendation and extension order were not returned by the postal service. 

 Nevertheless, Farrow alleges that the district court “pretended to send [him] orders 

that they never actually mailed or intentionally addressed the mail incorrectly so [he] 

Appellate Case: 21-1027 Document: 010110638864 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 5
6 

would not receive them.” Aplt. Br. at H. But he cites no evidence supporting this 

allegation. And although he acknowledged in his affidavit that he could ask the prison’s 

mailroom to “provide [him] a copy of all the Legal mail for the 2020 calendar year,” R. at 

126, he did not do so to support his motion for reconsideration. We agree with the 

district court that Farrow did not rebut the presumption that he received the 

recommendation and extension order that were mailed to him in May 2020. 

 As for the district court’s observation that Farrow did not address in his motion 

any of the magistrate judge’s findings or conclusions, Farrow contends that “it was not 

appropriate” to raise objections in his motion. Aplt. Br. at F. But one of the functions of 

Rule 60(b) is to relieve a party from a judgment entered due to mistake or inadvertence. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Because Farrow did not attempt to show that the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to dismiss his complaint was incorrect, he was not entitled to 

relief. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) 

(stating that a “motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has 

misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law”). 

 We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Farrow’s 

motion for reconsideration.3

3

 To the extent Farrow challenges the district court’s rulings on matters other 

than its denial of reconsideration, such as its denial of court-appointed counsel and a 

stay of the proceedings, we lack jurisdiction. See LaFleur v. Teen Help, 342 F.3d 

1145, 1153-54 (10th Cir. 2003) (stating that review of the District Court’s “decision 

on the post-judgment motion does not include [challenges to] the underlying 

judgment or prejudgment orders”). 

Appellate Case: 21-1027 Document: 010110638864 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 6
7 

CONCLUSION

 We affirm the district court’s judgment. We grant Farrow’s motion to proceed on 

appeal in forma pauperis. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 21-1027 Document: 010110638864 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 7