United States of America upon the relation and for the use of the Tennessee Valley Authority v. An Easement and Right-of-Way over 0.47 acres of land, more or less, in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting 7 Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Order Disbursing Funds. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 12/5/17. (jla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA upon
the relation and for the use of the
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 1:17-CV-117-DMB-DAS

AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
OVER .47 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR
LESS, IN OKTIBBEHA COUNTY,
MISSISSIPPI and J PERRY
PROPERTIES, LLC

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On September 20, 2017, the Tennessee Valley Authority filed a “Motion for Entry of a
Consent Judgment and Order Disbursing Funds.” Doc. #7. The motion asks the Court to enter a
proposed consent judgment which was e-mailed to the Court.
Generally, before entering a consent judgment, also called a consent decree, courts
must decide whether it represents a reasonable factual and legal determination
based on the facts of record, whether established by evidence, affidavit, or
stipulation. Courts must also ascertain that the settlement is fair and that it does not
violate the Constitution, statutes, or jurisprudence. In assessing the propriety of
giving judicial imprimatur to the consent decree, the court must also consider the
nature of the litigation and the purposes to be served by the decree.
Jones v. Gusman, 296 F.R.D. 416, 428–29 (E.D. La. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted) (citing Williams v. City of New Orleans, 729 F.2d 1554, 1559 (5th Cir. 1984) and United
States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 441 (5th Cir. 1981)).
The Court has reviewed the proposed consent judgment, which grants the Tennessee Valley
Authority immediate possession of certain property in exchange for a $12,000 payment to J Perry
Properties, and believes that the judgment represents a fair and reasonable factual and legal
determination based on the facts of record. The Court also concludes that the proposed consent

judgment does not violate the Constitution, statutes, or jurisprudence. Finally, the proposed
consent judgment is consistent with the nature of this litigation, which is a condemnation action.
Accordingly, the motion for entry of a consent judgment [7] is GRANTED. A judgment
consistent with the parties’ proposed consent judgment will be entered as an order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of December, 2017.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2