ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.

The matter before me is Plaintiff's Objection to Order Denying Plaintiff's Leave To Ammend [sic] Complaint [#170],1 filed March 9, 2016, objecting to the magistrate judge's Minute Order [#156], filed March 1, 2016. Exercising my discretion under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(d) to address the objection without awaiting a response, I overrule the objection.

Plaintiff's objection pertains to non-dispositive matters that were referred to the magistrate judge for resolution. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), I may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge's order which I find to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Moreover, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I construe and review his filings more liberally than pleadings or papers filed by attorneys. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, having reviewed the magistrate judge's Minute Order ([#156], filed March 1, 2016) denying plaintiff's Motion for Leave To Ammend [sic] Complaint [#141], filed February 16, 2016, I find and conclude that the magistrate judge's order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to name five John Doe defendants who were employees of Aramark allegedly involved in the preparation of his meals. The deadline for amendment of the pleadings was November 6, 2015. (See Courtroom Minutes [#81], filed September 24, 2015.) Although plaintiff claims to have served defendant Shad Jones with a request to produce the names of these defendants on October 19, 2015, he offers no explanation as to why he then waited some three months past the deadline for amendment of pleadings for Mr. Jones to respond to the request.2 Mr. Jones's alleged failure to do so does not excuse plaintiff from moving timely to amend, especially since the request he makes now — to add unnamed John Does — is the same as could have been made prior to the amendment deadline. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980); Simmons v. District of Columbia, 750 F.Supp.2d 43, 45 (D.D.C. 2011).

Moreover, plaintiff's "impression" notwithstanding, the local civil rules of this District Court expressly require a party who seeks leave to amend to provide a copy of his proposed pleading:

D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(a). This rule supplements, but does not conflict with, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Thus in addition to meeting the other standards required for consideration of a belatedly filed motion to amend, plaintiff must comply with these requirements as well.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the objections stated in Plaintiff's Objection to Order Denhing Plaintiff's Leave To Ammend [sic] Complaint [#170], filed March 9, 2016, are overruled.