Loebe v. Apodaca

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 29, 2005
Docket04-2338
StatusUnpublished

This text of Loebe v. Apodaca (Loebe v. Apodaca) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Loebe v. Apodaca, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2338

GEORGE T. LOEBE, SR., State Coordinator, GGRNC,

Appellant,

and

GRANDCHILDREN/GRANDPARENTS RIGHTS OF NORTH CAROLINA; TAMMY RAMEY, and all other GGRNC Members Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

versus

THOMAS APODACA, in his individual and official capacity; DEBRA CLARY, in her individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-04-175)

Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 29, 2005

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George T. Loebe, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Gerald Kevin Robbins, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

George T. Loebe, Sr., appeals from the district court’s

orders precluding him from representing a corporation or other

individuals, and dismissing without prejudice the civil complaint

filed by Loebe on behalf of the corporation and several

individuals. Both the complaint and the notice of appeal were

signed only by Loebe, who is not an attorney. It is well settled

that a corporation cannot appear in federal court except through

its attorney. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194,

201-02 (1993). Moreover, because Loebe is not an attorney, he

cannot represent the other named parties to the action.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Loebe v. Apodaca, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loebe-v-apodaca-ca4-2005.