ORDER

CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 35), filed on January 12, 2016. Plaintiff stated that he spoke with Defendant's counsel who does not oppose an extension. Doc. 35 at 1. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part.

It appears that Plaintiff, pro se, seeks a 60-90-day extension to file his amended complaint. Doc. 35 at 1. As grounds, Plaintiff states that he is suffering from medical issues and he is attempting to get an attorney. Id. at 1-2.

On November 6, 2015, United States District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Doc. 20. Judge Chappell directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before November 20, 2015. Id. at 7. Plaintiff later filed a motion for extension of time requesting 30 additional days to file his amended complaint. Doc. 27. The undersigned granted Plaintiff's motion and allowed Plaintiff until December 21, 2015 to file his amended complaint. Doc. 28. Plaintiff then filed another motion for extension of time requesting 90 days to file an amended complaint. Doc. 33. The Court was not inclined to allow Plaintiff an additional 90-days but the Court gave Plaintiff until January 15, 2016 to file his amended complaint. Doc. 34. Now, Plaintiff seeks an additional 60-90 days to file an amended complaint. Doc. 35. While the motion is unopposed, the Court finds that the time period requested is excessive and is not inclined to grant a 60-90-day extension. The Court will allow Plaintiff a final extension of up to and including February 2, 2016 to file his amended complaint. The Court will not be inclined, however, to grant additional extensions beyond that provided by this Order absent extenuating circumstances. Plaintiff has had since November 6, 2015 to file an amended complaint. With this additional extension, Plaintiff will have had nearly 90 days to file his amended complaint. This case must continue to move forward. Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint on or before February 2, 2016 could result in Plaintiff's case being dismissed for lack of prosecution.

The Court also encourages Plaintiff to retain a lawyer. Should Plaintiff continue to proceed pro se, the Court reminds Plaintiff that before preparing any further pleadings, Plaintiff is encouraged to visit the "Proceeding Without a Lawyer" section of this Court's website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The website includes tips, frequently asked questions, sample forms, and a "Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer." Plaintiff is informed that if he chooses to proceed pro se, it is mandatory that he proceed in accordance with Federal and Local Rules. Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that despite certain leniency afforded pro se parties, they must follow procedures).

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 35) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall have up to and including February 2, 2016 to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint on or before February 2, 2016 could result in Plaintiff's case being dismissed for lack of prosecution.

DONE and ORDERED.