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.
holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation holding that a close temporal proximity between a public employees speech and a defendants actions suggested a causal relationship holding that consent was valid despite close temporal proximity between the illegal entry and consent holding that in addition to temporal proximity plaintiff must show further evidence supporting a causal connection