With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reveals that Gerald neither checked the retaliation box nor presented any information that could reasonably be expected to lead the EEOC to investigate a retaliation claim. Because Gerald did not exhaust his administrative remedies for his retaliation claim, the Court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over it. The Court therefore dismisses Gerald’s retaliation claim without prejudice. See Echols v. Today’s Staffing, 35 Fed.Appx. 776, 777 (10th Cir.2002)(affirming dismissal of race discrimination claim where EEOC charge provided no suggestion of a racial discrimination theory). II. GERALD FAILS TO ADEQUATELY PLEAD A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM. Gerald fails to allege facts that, taken as true, plausibly allege a hostile work environment. See Robbins v. Okla homo, 519 F.3d at 1247-48 (<HOLDING>). See also Messina v. Kroblin Transp. Sys.,

A: holding that a complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face
B: holding that allegations in a complaint must be enough that if assumed to be true the plaintiff plausibly not just speculatively has a claim for relief
C: holding that a complaint must contain only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face
D: recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss
B.