the Plaintiff to bring forth new never raised allegations, and previously unmentioned major life activities that have been allegedly affected. The Court is not obliged to search the record, where Plaintiff failed to request to amend the complaint, in order to set forth those new allegations, and theories. See Alamo Rodriguez v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 286 F.Supp.2d 144, 152 (D.P.R.2003) (internal omissions omitted). See also Rivera-Mercado v. Scotiabank De Puerto Rico-Intern., No. 06-1018(JAG), 571 F.Supp.2d 279, 2008 WL 660088 (D.P.R. March 06, 2008); Corujo-Marti, 519 F.Supp.2d 201 (D.P.R.2007); Pagan-Duran v. Ramirez-Rangel, No. 041668(ADC), 2007 WL 1056719 (D.P.R.2007); Davila Rivera v. Caribbean Refrescos, Inc., No. 02-2499(DRD), 2004 WL 1925477, at *8 (D.P.R. May 26, 2004) (<HOLDING>). In our view, Plaintiffs omission is fatal to
holding that plaintiffs evidence showing that defendant refused to allow her to work as flight attendant because of her weight failed to demonstrate that defendant perceived her as substantially limited in any major life activity holding that a district court had sufficient reason to reject the plaintiffs belated attempt to amend her complaint fifteen months after the commencement of her action and nine months after the initial amendment to her complaint holding that plaintiffs attempt to amend her allegations through opposition would not be allowed inasmuch as complaint did not identify any major life activity that had been jeopardized due to her alleged mental impairment holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort holding that reproduction is not a major life activity