E. C. Bowlds, Plaintiff Appellant,and Way of the Cross, Incorporated, Plaintiff, v. Karen L. Hicks; Decatur Telecasting, Incorporated; Word Ofgod Fellowship, Incorporated; Marcus Lamb;darryl Hicks, Defendants Appellees, 33 F.3d 51 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 33 F.3d 51 (4th Cir. 1994) Submitted: June 28, 1994Decided: August 22, 1994

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

E. C. Bowlds, Appellant Pro Se.

John Richardson Haworth, Haworth, Riggs, Kuhn, Haworth & Miller, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant1  appeals from the district court's order entering partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants and the magistrate judge's order entering judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.2  Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bowlds v. Hicks, No. CA-91-348-2 (M.D.N.C. July 2, 1992; June 30, 1993). 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.

AFFIRMED

 1

Although the notice of appeal was filed on behalf of both Plaintiffs, we address only Bowlds' appeal because a corporation cannot proceed pro se and there has been no appearance by counsel on behalf of Way of the Cross. See In re K.M.A., Inc., 652 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1981)

 2

Although the contract between the parties included a choice of law provision that District of Columbia law was to apply, the parties argued and the district court applied North Carolina law to resolve the substantive issues. Because the relevant North Carolina law does not differ from the law of the District of Columbia, we need not address the propriety of applying North Carolina law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61

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.