Black testified that he interpreted Clarke’s posts as threats, and that they caused him mental and emotional harm. (Docket #22-1 at 17). Black also testified that because of Clarke’s posts, he has become the target of threatening and anti-Semitic comments online. Id. 4. ANALYSIS Black brings claims against Clarke under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.9 Black also brings a Monell claim against The defendants ask the Court to disregard Black’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims because Black first asserted them in response to their motion for summary judgment, and that, they argue, is too late in the day. The defendants are right that a plaintiff “may not amend his complaint through arguments in his brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.” Anderson v. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2012). On the other hand, a plaintiff has latitude to refine and develop his legal theories based on the record that emerges in discovery. See CMFG Life Ins. Co. v. RBS Sec., Inc., 799 F.3d 729, 743 (7th Cir. 2015). This latitude is in keeping with Rule 8(a)’s notice pleading regime, under which “[a] complaint need not identify legal theories.” Id. at 744; see also Currie v. Chhabra, 728 F.3d 626, 629 (7th Cir. 2013) (“It therefore does not matter whether the complaint mentioned the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth 9 Page 9 of 27 Case 2:17-cv-00156-JPS Filed 01/05/18 Page 9 of 27 Document 39