With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to forward Plaintiffs legal work. However, in his appellate brief, Plaintiff affirmatively renounces the first form of alleged retaliation and implicitly renounces the third. 6 . Smith v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 713 F.3d 1059, 1063 (11th Cir.2013) (“[Affidavits established, among other things, that [the plaintiff] and other inmates were transferred immediately after filing lawsuits and/or grievances, and inmates who filed lawsuits and grievances were transferred more often than the average inmate. When viewing the evidence, including the affidavits, in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], he sufficiently established that one could conclude that the protected conduct was a motivating factor behind the [retaliation].”); Akins v. Fulton Cty., Ga., 420 F.3d 1293, 1305 (ilth Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 476 (6th Cir.

A: holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation
B: holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection
C: holding that consent was valid despite close temporal proximity between the illegal entry and consent
D: holding that a close temporal proximity between a public employees speech and a defendants actions suggested a causal relationship
D.