Heather Hoffman v. P. Tanner, No. 19-1095 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1095 HEATHER C. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. P.J. TANNER, Beaufort County Sheriff; CHIEF DEPUTY MICHAEL HATFIELD; STAFF SERGEANT ERIC CALENDINE; CORPORAL ANDREW CALORE; J. EDWARD ALLEN, Beaufort County Coroner; STEPHANIE SMART-GITTINGS, Circuit Defender, Beaufort County Public Defender's Office; DUFFIE STONE, Fourteenth Circuit Court Solicitor; DR. SUSAN ERIN PRESNELL, MUSC Medical Examiner; MS. CATHERINE E. HEIGEL, Director, SC Department of Health and Environmental Control; JERRI ANN ROSENEAU, Beaufort County Magistrate Court Clerk of Court; AT&T, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:18-cv-01146-RMG-BM) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Heather C. Hoffman, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Bass Lohr, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina; Hervery B.O. Young, SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION ON INDIGENT DEFENSE, Columbia, South Carolina; Elloree Ann Ganes, Barbara Wynne Showers, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina; Andrew Richard Hand, WILLOUGHBY & HOEFER, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Heather C. Hoffman appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her civil rights complaint alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claims and other related constitutional violations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hoffman v. Tanner, No. 9:18-cv-01146-RMG-BM (D.S.C. Dec. 26, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.