Opinion
3:24-CV-49-MPM-JMV
09-05-2024
LATONYA EASON, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Son, Q.E. PLAINTIFF v. CITY OF SENATOBIA, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
MICHAEL P. MILLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Latonya Eason's Objection [34] to Judge Virden's Order (“the Order”) [30] granting Defendants' Motion to Restrict [16] body cam footage of Plaintiff Eason's minor children. The Court, having reviewed the record and considered the applicable law, is now prepared to rule.
Rule 72(a)(1)(B) of the Local Uniform Civil Rules states:
No ruling of a magistrate judge in any matter which he or she is empowered to hear and determine will be reversed, vacated, or modified on appeal unless the district judge determines that the magistrate judge's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, or that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The Court finds that the Order is not clearly erroneous. Judge Virden carefully considered the applicable law and weighed the facts when making her determination. She found that after considering the privacy interests of Q.E., the privacy interests of the other minor children, the effect that this video could have on these children's future, and the potential prejudice the video could have on jurors, that restricting access to the video was proper. This Court has stated, “Under this deferential standard, a magistrate judge's decision must be affirmed unless ‘on the entire evidence [the court] is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'” Gilleylen v. City of Tupelo, No. 1:16CV94-SA-DAS, 2017 WL 3283863, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 2, 2017) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, (1948)). No such firm conviction exists here.
ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff Latonya Eason's Objection [34] is DENIED, and Judge Virden's Order [30] is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED