Notwithstanding, with respect to giving a plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in relevant part, that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” FED.R.CIY.P. 15(a)(2). Although the rule reflects a liberal amendment policy, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “the district court enjoys significant latitude in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, and we defer to the district court’s decision if any adequate reason for the denial is apparent on the record.” U.S. ex rel. Gagne v. City of Worcester, 565 F.3d 40, 48 (1st Cir.2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, leave should be freely given in
holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a third amended complaint where the plaintiff had already been given opportunities to amend and did not indicate what additional facts he could plead to correct the deficiencies in his complaint