Paradise Village Children's Home Inc. v. United States ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30062
Conference Calendar
PARADISE VILLAGE CHILDREN’S HOME INC.; ET AL.;
Plaintiffs,
ZEONIA LIGGINS; LILLIAN OVERTON; LORETTA LIGGINS;
ROBIN JACKSON; DORIS KEY; J.R. LIGGINS; HENRY LIGGINS, SR.;
CHARLES H. BRADFORD; WALTER KEY, JR.; BELINDA BONNETT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MICHAEL B. TAYLOR,
State Director Rural Development LA State Office;
DOYLE ROBINSON, Field Representative Rural Development
Louisiana State Office and His Personal Capacity; TERRY A.
DOUGHTY, Attorney & In His Personal Capacity; ALLEN FREEMAN;
IVORY SMITH; HAZEL LIVINGSTON; ELOISE RABON; ARTHUR HAMLIN;
WAYNE BINGS; MOREHOUSE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Development District A Louisiana Corporation thru Its
Registered Agent James Christmas; INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE
INSTITUTE,
Defendants-Appellees,
CHARLES HERRING; CHARLES THEUS,
Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-0603
--------------------
No. 03-30062
-2-
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiffs-appellants appeal the dismissal of their
claims filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671et seq. They argue that the district court erred insofar as it
held that Paradise Village Children’s Home, Inc. could not
proceed pro se because it was a corporate entity. However, “a
corporation can appear in a court of record only by an attorney
at law.” Southwest Express Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n,
670 F.2d 53, 55 (5th Cir. 1982). Appellants’ argument that J. R.
Liggins is constitutionally entitled to proceed pro se on behalf
of the corporation is therefore rejected.
Insofar as the appellants have requested in the alternative
that they be afforded additional time in which to retain counsel
and amend their complaint, that request is DENIED. The appellants
have failed to address any of the district court’s rulings that
served as the basis for the dismissal of their claims, and they
have therefore waived their review. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 1993). The appeal is therefore
frivolous and is dismissed as such. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.