Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Battle v. Kadosh, Inc., 00-1523 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1523 Visitors: 53
Filed: Dec. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1523 SHERRY D. BATTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ELITE CHILD, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, versus KADOSH, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-857-2) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 7, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 00-1523



SHERRY D. BATTLE,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,
          and


ELITE CHILD, INCORPORATED,

                                                            Plaintiff,
          versus


KADOSH, INCORPORATED,

                                                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-99-857-2)


Submitted:   November 30, 2000             Decided:   December 7, 2000


Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sherry D. Battle, Appellant Pro Se. Ira Michael Steingold, STEIN-
GOLD & MENDELSON, Portsmouth, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Sherry D. Battle appeals from the district court’s order dis-

missing a civil complaint filed by a corporation, Elite Child,

Inc., in which she is the sole shareholder.   The notice of appeal

was signed only by Battle, 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). Accordingly, we grant the Appellee’s motion to

dismiss the appeal.   We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.




                                                         DISMISSED




                                2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer