LESLIE C. SMITH, United States Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint, filed September 25, 2000 (Doc. 32). A telephonic hearing was held on this Motion on November 1, 2000 , at which Anne-Marie C. Lindsay, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and Gregory Biehler, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant. The Court, having considered the pleadings, arguments of counsel, relevant law, and being otherwise fully advised, finds that this Motion should be DENIED.
In his original complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S. C, § 12101, et seq. and Title VII for discrimination based on alleged disability due to a back injury. On June 20, 2000 , Plaintiff stipulated to dismissal of his Title VII claim as contained in Count II of the original complaint. On the same day, Defendant stipulated to the filing of the First Amended Complaint, which asserts an ADA claim and a state law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Plaintiff now seeks to file a second amended complaint, adding allegations that he was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated because he was diagnosed and treated for cancer and filed a labor complaint with the United States Labor Board in 1995. Defendant opposes the amendment on the grounds that motion is untimely and discovery has closed. Defendant further asserts that the amendment would be futile due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and statute of limitations.
After a responsive pleading has been filed, a plaintiff may amend the complaint only by leave of the court or upon written consent of the adverse party. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Leave of the court shall be freely granted when justice so requires. See id. However, if the court determines there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice, or futility of the amendment, leave to amend may be denied. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962). Untimeliness alone is a sufficient reason to deny leave to amend, especially when the party filing the motion has no adequate explanation for the delay. See Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho, 31 F.3d 1023, 1027 (10th Cir. 1994).
This case was filed on February 22, 2000 . Discovery terminated on September 25, 2000 . The Provisional Discovery Plan permitted Plaintiff until June 1, 2000 to join additional parties and to amend the pleadings. The proposed amendments are based upon facts known to Plaintiff before he filed his original complaint. Under these circumstances, the motion to amend is untimely.
Discovery has terminated and addition of new claims at this late date would require reopening of discovery. Plaintiff has failed to offer an adequate explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the new claims may be futile. For these reasons, the motion to amend should be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.