ORDER

REONA J. DALY, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 143) filed by Plaintiff. Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 145).

Plaintiff, through counsel, previously filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 114) alleging Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights and proceeds on the following claims:

Plaintiff seeks leave to clarify his allegations against Defendants. Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint does not add any additional claims or defendants, but it does add new factual allegations against Defendants. Defendants object to Plaintiff being granted leave to file the proposed amended complaint arguing it is untimely and they will be unfairly prejudiced by the addition of 20 paragraphs of allegations.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states, "a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." "Reasons for finding that leave should not be granted include undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment." Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007).

The discovery deadline in this case was April 15, 2019. The dispositive motion deadline is May 1, 2019. Plaintiff filed his motion a mere four days before the discovery deadline. Plaintiff fails to set forth a sufficient reason for the delay. Adding allegations at this stage of the proceedings would unfairly prejudice Defendants as they will not have the opportunity to conduct discovery regarding the new factual allegations. The Court finds undue delay and unfair prejudice and declines to grant leave to file the proposed third amended complaint. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 143) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.