ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 57)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO OBJECT TO MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS

(Doc. 58)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS OBJECTIONS.

(Doc. 62).

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Philip A. Koenig ("Plaintiff"), is proceeding pro se, in this mortgage-related case brought against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("Defendant"). Plaintiff brings three motions for the Court's consideration stemming from the Court's prior Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Add New Parties and Claims to his complaint. (Doc. 54). After denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave, the Court ORDERED Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint on or before January 9, 2015.

In the instant Motions, Plaintiff requests leave to file objections to this Court's December 10, 2014 Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to add new claims and parties and permission to file his First Amended Complaint following a ruling on Plaintiff's objections. (Docs. 56, 57).1 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file objections is DENIED and Plaintiff will have until April 8, 2015 to file an amended complaint which complies with the Court's previous order on dismissal. (Docs. 24, 54).

A party may serve and file objections to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive pretrial order within 14 days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Plaintiff was served by mail with the order denying his motion for leave to amend on December 10, 2014, and any objections were due on or before December 28, 2014. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time, signed on January 9, 2015, is late, and Plaintiff has not explained why he was unable to request an extension of time before the deadline to file his objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Plaintiff's report that he intended to file his motion for leave with his earlier objections, filed on January 5, 2015 does not establish excusable neglect for the late request. Plaintiff's strep throat also does not constitute good cause for why Plaintiff could not request an extension of time to file his objections. Plaintiff is familiar with the simple process of requesting a timely extension of time. Indeed, Plaintiff's instant Motion for leave is a fourth attempt to obtain additional time to respond to a Court order. Plaintiff's delay in this case has been ongoing and Plaintiff was previously warned that the Court would not grant a further request for an extension of time unless good cause is shown.

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to allow the late filed objections, but in an effort to be particularly sensitive to the challenges faced by pro se litigants, the Court will grant a final extension of time for Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint must be consistent with the Court's December 23, 2013 Order granting Plaintiff leave to amend his second and third causes of action, only. (Doc. 24).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.