Pritchard v. Lubman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1482
In Re: TAMOJIRA, INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
JOSEPH PRITCHARD,
Debtor - Appellant,
versus
SHERMAN B. LUBMAN, Trustee,
Trustee - Appellee.
No. 01-1483
In Re: TAMOJIRA, INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
JOSEPH PRITCHARD,
Debtor - Appellant,
versus
SHERMAN B. LUBMAN, Trustee,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-11-3, CA-01-12-3, BK-94-34438)
Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 25, 2001
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Pritchard, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Allen Condyles, Loc
Pfeiffer, MALONEY, HUENNEKENS, PARKS, GECKER & PARSONS, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Joseph Pritchard appeals from
the district court’s orders dismissing his appeals from the bank-
ruptcy court’s orders approving the trustee’s final amended report.
The notices of appeal were filed by Pritchard as president of
Tamojira, Inc., the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy. Although
28 U.S.C. § 1654 (1994) permits parties to conduct their own liti-
gation, it is well settled that a corporation must be represented
by an attorney in federal court. National Indep. Theatre Exhibi-
tors v. Buena Vista Distrib., 748 F.2d 602, 609 (11th Cir. 1984)
(corporate officer could not bring pro se action on behalf of
corporation); Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20,
22 (2d Cir. 1983). Accordingly, because Tamojira, Inc., is not
represented by licensed counsel, we grant the Appellee’s motion to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot
Pritchard’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s May 30,
2001, order because his response was filed and has been fully
considered. 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