Thompson v. Chambers-Smith et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GOLDY THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-
SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-660
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kim A. Jolson
ORDER
Goldy Thompson is an Ohio inmate proceeding without assistance of counsel.
After an initial screen of Mr. Thompson’s Complaint, it was ordered that he may
proceed with his First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Michael
Strausbaugh and Thomas Napier and his remaining claims were dismissed. (ECF
Nos. 6 and 14.)
Strausbaugh and Napier then filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 10.) Mr. Thompson did not
respond to the Motion. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the Motion and issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that it be granted and that the action
be dismissed in its entirety. (R&R, ECF No. 17.) Mr. Thompson objected to the R&R
(Objs., ECF No. 20), and Defendants replied in support of adopting the R&R (ECF
No. 21).
Case: 2:25-cv-00660-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 22 Filed: 03/26/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation,
the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Mr. Thompson failed to sufficiently
allege the third element of his First Amendment retaliation claims, i.e., the
allegations did not establish a causal connection between his alleged protected
conduct and the adverse actions taken against him by Defendants. (R&R, PAGEID#
166.) Instead, Mr. Thompson alleged only that “he feel[s]” that Strausbaugh
retaliated “from a complaint on his fellow officer” – without any allegation that
Strausbaugh even knew of Mr. Thompson’s protected conduct. (See Compl., ECF No.
5, ¶¶ 11-20.) As to Napier, Mr. Thompson did not allege any facts supporting his
statement that Napier retaliated against him. (Id., ¶¶ 25-35.)
In his objections, Mr. Thompson argues that he alleged specific dates and
details regarding his protected conduct and the adverse actions taken against him;
Mr. Thompson adds that he has raised a reasonable expectation that discovery
would reveal evidence in support of his claims. (Objs., PAGEID# 174–75.) But Mr.
Thompson provides no basis for this Court to conclude that he plausibly pleaded the
causation element of his First Amendment retaliation claims or that he is entitled
to discovery so that he can.
Case: 2:25-cv-00660-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 22 Filed: 03/26/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
On de novo review of the record and filings, the Court finds no error in the
Magistrate Judge’s reasoning or conclusions. A complaint must include factual
allegations that are both well-pleaded and plausible. Factual allegations are well-
pleaded if they are specific and support the plaintiff’s claims. Lillard v. Shelby Cty.
Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (“[C]onclusory allegations of
unconstitutional conduct without specific factual allegations fail to state a claim
under section 1983.”).
As to the plausibility requirement, “the sufficiency of a complaint turns on its
factual content, requiring the plaintiff to plead enough factual matter to raise a
plausible inference of wrongdoing.” 16630 Southfield Ltd. Partnership v. Flagstar
Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation modified). Whether an
inference is plausible “depends on a host of considerations, including common sense
and the strength of competing explanations for the defendant’s conduct.” Id. A
“complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the
material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Columbia
Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995) (citation modified).
Even holding Mr. Thompson’s pro se complaint to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, as this Court is required to do, he has
failed to sufficiently allege the third element of his First Amendment retaliation
claims. He has provided no facts or evidence to support even an inference that the
adverse actions taken against him were motivated by his protected conduct.
Case: 2:25-cv-00660-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 22 Filed: 03/26/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Discovery will not cure this defect; he must allege a plausible claim before he is
entitled to discovery.
Mr. Thompson’s Objections (ECF No. 20) are OVERRULED, and the Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED and Mr. Thompson’s claims are
DISMISSED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 2:25-cv-00660-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 22 Filed: 03/26/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>