ORDER

ANNE C. CONWAY, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 30) ("R&R"), recommending denial of Plaintiff's Motion For Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 28). Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. No. 31) to the R&R and Defendant responded (Doc. No. 32) to those objections. After conducting de novo review of this matter and considering the parties' post-R&R submissions, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff did not even attempt to show good cause for missing the deadline for filing motions to amend. The undersigned judge agrees with that assessment. In his Objections to the R&R, Plaintiff concedes that the facts arguably giving rise to the new claim sought to be advanced in Count VII of the proposed second amended complaint were known even before the initial complaint was filed. Plaintiff then proceeds to argue that the viability of an ADA claim based on those facts presents a complicated legal issue. However, that did not preclude Plaintiff from filing his motion for leave to amend before the court-ordered deadline expired. Accordingly, the undersigned judge determines that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for missing the deadline for seeking leave to amend.

Additionally, the Magistrate Judge determined that Counts IV and VI of the proposed second amended complaint fail to state claims for relief, so amendment as to those counts would be futile. The undersigned judge agrees with that assessment as well. Apparently, so does Plaintiff, as he has not even bothered to address that point in his Objections to the R&R.

Based on the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:

DONE and ORDERED.