Kim Laurie v. Charles Walder

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 22a0391n.06
No. 21-4192
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
KIM LAURIE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CHARLES WALDER,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
OPINION
Before: BATCHELDER, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. In June 2019, Geauga County Auditor Charles Walder
accused Geauga County court employees Kim Laurie and Seth Miller of removing documents
from his office without permission. A special prosecutor eventually investigated the allegation
and charged Laurie and Miller with criminal mischief. Laurie and Miller (“plaintiffs”) later
brought this suit, claiming on various grounds that Walder fomented the prosecution. The district
court granted Walder’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.
Apparently this lawsuit arose from a year-long feud between Walder and the plaintiffs.
Laurie and Miller first sued Walder in October 2019, bringing retaliation and defamation claims.
In May 2020, the special prosecutor charged Laurie and Miller with one count of criminal mischief.
The pair then voluntarily dismissed that suit and filed this one, adding a retaliatory-prosecution
claim and malicious-prosecution claim, among others.
In this appeal, plaintiffs challenge only the district court’s dismissal of one those claims,
namely their retaliatory-prosecution claim. We review that dismissal de novo. Albrecht v. Treon,

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 21-4192, Laurie, et al. v. Walder
2
617 F.3d 890, 893 (6th Cir. 2010). We can affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Boler
v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391, 414 (6th Cir. 2017).
Plaintiffs principally argue that the district court failed to address their retaliatory-
prosecution claim in its order granting Walder’s motion. Suffice it to say that we disagree. See
Order at 5, 9. And on the merits we think that the plaintiffs did not plausibly plead that Walder
orchestrated their prosecution in retaliation for the filing of their first lawsuit. See generally Gillis
v. Miller, 845 F.3d 677, 683 (6th Cir. 2017). Their allegations, rather, boil down to little more
than chronology: that the prosecution came after the suit. That is not enough to state this kind of
claim. See Montell v. Diversified Clinical Services, Inc., 757 F.3d 497, 507 (6th Cir. 2014). The
record therefore supports the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --