absolutely should know how the BOP treats its inmates especially in situations where it uses live ammunition to kill them.” See Pl.’s Resp. at 3-4, EOF No. 314. Pinson does not identify any specific redactions that are problematic or provide any arguments that would help the Court weigh the' public and private interests. Pin-son does not explain why identifying particular staff members would serve the public interest or reveal what the government is up to in a way that understanding the actions of high-ranking BOP officials alone does not. Here, because Pinson has not presented any compelling evidence of illegal activity by the BOP, the names of the third-party inmates and individuals are categorically exempt from disclosure. See Pinson, 202 F.Supp.3d at 102, 2016 WL 4074130, at *7 (<HOLDING>); SafeCard, 926 F.2d at 1206 (holding that
holding that memoranda prepared by various levels of staff lawyers within the department of justice tax division and by an assistant united states attorney were exempt from disclosure under foia exemption 5 holding that names and address of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of exemption 7c  are exempt from disclosure holding that records regarding complaints against state police officers which would be exempt from disclosure when unredacted where no longer exempt after the names of state police troopers the names of complainants and all identifying information were redacted holding that the names of thirdparty inmates within memoranda were categorically exempt from disclosure absent compelling evidence of illegal activity by the bop holding that names of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of exemption 7c are categorically exempt from disclosure unless disclosing such information is necessary in order to confirm or refute compelling evidence that the agency is engaged in illegal activity