ORDER

SUSAN O. HICKEY, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff Laney J. Harris has brought numerous claims against Defendants,1 including claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff also filed a supplement to the motion. ECF No. 36. In an order dated July 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant denied Plaintiff's motion and supplement. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff filed an appeal from the Magistrate Judge's order. ECF No. 38. For the following reasons, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's Order.

"The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive issue is extremely deferential." Dochniak v. Dominum Mgmt. Servs., 240 F.R.D. 451, 452 (D. Minn. 2006) (citing Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999)). "The Court will reverse such an order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Dochniak, 240 F.R.D. at 452.

Plaintiff was given leave to file a 71-page amended complaint, which he filed on June 14, 2019. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff moved the Court for leave to file an 82-page second amended complaint, which would add several claims and new factual assertions. The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's motion, finding that the motion was untimely and that Plaintiff had not shown good cause for his delay in filing it. ECF No. 37.

Deadlines set in a scheduling order "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Rule 16(b)'s good-cause standard governs when a party seeks leave to amend a pleading outside the time period established by a scheduling order, not the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a)." Hartis v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935, 948 (8th Cir. 2012). "The primary measure of Rule 16(b)'s `good cause' standard is the moving party's diligence in attempting to meet the case management order's requirements." Bradford v. DANA Corp., 248 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2001).

In the instant case, the deadline for filing amended pleadings was April 25, 2019. The Court notes that Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint after the deadline had passed. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on July 14, 2019. Plaintiff then filed his Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) on July 3, 2019, and this motion was denied by the magistrate judge.

Plaintiff's motion does not mention the good-cause standard that applies when leave to amend is sought after the deadline has passed. He incorrectly cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which does not apply. His motion explains that he would like to add quotes from a newspaper, and the reason for his delay in seeking to add these quotes is that he does not subscribe to the newspaper. He also wishes to add several causes of action to his complaint but does not explain why he could not have added these causes of action before the deadline for amending pleadings or in his first amended complaint. Plaintiff states in his motion that he wishes to add facts regarding a meeting that occurred on July 1, 2019, after this case had been pending for more than one year and after the close of discovery.2 However, proposing new claims and facts after discovery has been completed would result in prejudice to Defendants.

For these reasons, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) should be denied. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 37) is affirmed.

IT IS SO ADJUDGED.