ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This action proceeds on plaintiff's third amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed a second motion for extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for a second extension of time, and such request is granted.

That said, the undersigned observes that in the request for second extension plaintiff discusses the standards governing a motion for leave to amend. (ECF No. 84 at 5.) Although plaintiff is correct that the Federal Rules contemplate granting leave to amend more liberally to pro se plaintiffs, plaintiff has already been granted leave to amend on several occasions. On March 18, 2016, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff not be granted further leave to amend. (ECF No. 28 at 29.) Such recommendations were adopted in full. (ECF No. 31.) Despite such order, plaintiff again sought leave to amend. Plaintiff was denied leave to amend by the district court on July 24, 2017. (ECF No. 62.) In the underlying findings and recommendations, the court expressly found that plaintiff failed to meet the standards necessary to warrant amendment in this case filed in 2011. (ECF No. 61 at 11-14.) Moreover, the pretrial motions deadline expired on March 30, 2018. (ECF No. 70.)

Therefore, plaintiff is cautioned that although he is granted an extension of time in which to file objections, he is not granted leave to file an amended pleading. Rather, plaintiff is only granted an extension of time to file objections to the January 29, 2019 findings and recommendations addressing defendants' motion for summary judgment. The time for seeking leave to amend in this 2011 case has expired.1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's second motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 84) is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the January 29, 2019 findings and recommendations. No further extensions of time will be granted.