MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Dennis Laramore's Motion to Extend the Time to Respond to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 52) On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed his third Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 49) On October 7, 2019, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 51) On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for extension of time requesting an additional thirty days in which to file a reply memorandum.

Pursuant to this district's local rules, any reply from Plaintiff should have been filed within seven days of Defendants' response: no later than October 14, 2019. See E.D.Mo. L.R. 4.01(C). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is untimely. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Nonetheless, pro se litigants are required to follow the same rules of procedure, including local court rules, as are lawyers. See French v. Cent. Credit Servs., No. 4:16CV1654 RLW, 2018 WL 2739922, at *1 (E.D. Mo. June 7, 2018), aff'd, 759 F. App'x 566 (8th Cir. 2019); Like v. Wallace, No. 1:15CV172 ACL, 2017 WL 1954629, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 11, 2017) (noting that "status as a pro se prisoner does not excuse [plaintiff] from responding to Defendants' Motion with specific factual support for his claims to avoid summary judgment, or from complying with local rules") (internal quotation and citation omitted). The Court, however, finds just reason to allow Plaintiff's untimely motion for extension of time and grants leave for Plaintiff to file a reply memorandum no later than November 22, 2019.1

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Dennis Laramore's Motion to Extend the Time to Respond to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED up to and including November 22, 2019.