discovery has closed in the case, the court has the discretion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of exploring the additional allegations proposed by the plaintiff. See Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 455 (8th Cir.1998). The court also notes that the defendant has filed a motion to enlarge the discovery period in the ease. Accordingly, the court determines that the defendant gnizes that the plaintiff has been faced with deficits such as short term legal representation and the burden associated with proceeding as a pro se litigant. Along this line of reasoning, the court is mindful of the policy that an added measure of leniency is extended to pro se litigants respecting procedural requirements. See Moore v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 994 F.2d 874, 877 (D.C.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Nix v. Hoke, 62 F.Supp.2d 110, 117
holding that rule 56f applies to pro se litigants recognizing that although pro se litigants are not entitled to greater rights than represented litigants due process principles permit the imposition of a procedural bar only after consideration of the pro se litigants reasonable expectations about what had occurred recognizing that courts freely grant pro se litigants leave to amend recognizing that courts generally afford pro se litigants leniency in technical matters holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules