Judge Tosses Restraining Order Case Against Streamer Chud the Builder

A restraining order petition filed by Yashmine Shauntea West against streamer Dalton Eatherly—known online as Chud the Builder—has been dismissed by the courts, marking a legal setback in what became a tense online and offline dispute.

West filed for a protective order in November 2025, alleging that Eatherly had engaged in“racial violent behavior”and exposed her on social media, creating what she described as a“harassment following.”According to the petition, Eatherly came to her workplace in Clarksville, Tennessee, on November 19, 2025, where he recorded their interaction and posted it to Twitter. West claimed he misrepresented what happened, falsely stating she had assaulted him and refused to help him. The post reportedly led to an escalating wave of online harassment targeting her and her job, which she said continued on social media daily after the incident.

In her request to the court, West asked that Eatherly be ordered to stay away from her, remove all social media posts about her, and refrain from discussing her in the future. But on December 2, the judge ruled against her. The court determined that West did not meet the legal threshold required for a protective order—she was not a domestic abuse victim, stalking victim, or sexual assault victim, and the evidence she presented was insufficient to support her claims.

The timing of this ruling carries added weight given recent developments. Earlier this week, authorities arrested Eatherly following a shooting outside the Clarksville Courthouse near Nashville. He’s currently being held on a $1.25 million bond on charges related to the shooting—a significant escalation from the social media conflict that prompted West’s initial legal action months earlier.

The case highlights the complex intersection of online conduct, workplace safety concerns, and the legal standards required to obtain protective orders. While West’s allegations centered on harassment and reputational harm stemming from Eatherly’s social media posts, the court found her claims didn’t fit the narrow categories of abuse that warrant such legal intervention. Now, with Eatherly facing far more serious criminal charges, questions linger about what might have changed had the court taken a different approach to her November petition.