FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 29 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

BENJAMIN J. ROSCOE; THE 

BROOK APARTMENTS, L.L.C., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

GERALDINE M. ROSCOE, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,* 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 04-2267 

(D.C. No. CIV-03-454-JH/LFG) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT** 

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

In light of the district court's substitution of the United States of America 

as the sole defendant and its amendment of its caption in its judgment, we hereby 

amend the caption of this appeal to reflect the United States of America as the 

proper defendant-appellee in this action . 

•• This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

· generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-2267 Document: 010110615352 Date Filed: 04/29/2005 Page: 1
which accepted the magistrate judge's recommendations to dismiss the LLC as a 

plaintiff, to substitute the United States as the sole defendant, and to grant 

defendant's motion for summary judgment on Mr. and Mrs. Roscoe's claims. 

The LLC was dismissed as a plaintiff because it was not represented by 

counsel in the district court. Similarly, no counsel has entered an appearance for 

the LLC in this court. As they did in the district court, appellants contend that the 

LLC can proceed pro se in this appeal. But it cannot. "It has been the law for the 

better part of two centuries . .. that a corporation may appear in the federal courts 

only through licensed counsel. As the courts have recognized, the rationale for 

that rule applies equally to all artificial entities." Rowland v. Calif. Men 's 

Colony , Unit II Men 's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (citations 

omitted). Because no attorney has entered an appearance for the LLC in this 

appeal, the LLC's appeal is dismissed, and we do not consider appellants' 

extensive arguments challenging the district court's dismissal of the LLC. 

Mr. Roscoe complains that the magistrate judge sanctioned him for filing 

papers for the LLC after the magistrate judge prohibited the LLC from proceeding 

without counsel. The inherent powers of the courts include the ability to select 

appropriate sanctions. LaFleur v. Teen Help, 342 F.3d 1145, 1149 (10th Cir. 

2003). We review the imposition of sanctions for abuse of discretion. Id. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-2267 Document: 010110615352 Date Filed: 04/29/2005 Page: 2
that the magistrate judge was assigned to this case upon its removal on April 15, 

2003. Further, the matters about which Mr. Roscoe complains fall within those 

non-dispositive matters that magistrate judges are authorized to handle. See 28 

U.S .C. § 636(b)(l)(A) (listing matters that can and cannot be referred to a 

magistrate judge); Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1519-20 (10th 

Cir. 1995) (holding that non-dispositive sanctions are within a magistrate judge's 

powers). The magistrate judge did not exceed his jurisdiction. 

The other arguments that Mr. Roscoe raises on appeal 2 were addressed by 

the magistrate judge in his Findings and Recommended Disposition dated July 30, 

2004, and by the district court in its Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings 

dated September 9, 2004. We affirm those decisions, and the district court's 

disposition of this case, substantially for the reasons stated in those orders. 

The appeal of The Brook Apartments, L.L.C. is DISMISSED. The 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

2 These arguments are: that the district court did not have subject matter 

jurisdiction because the complaint presented no federal question; that the district 

court erred in not granting a default judgment against defendant Gibbs; and that 

the plaintiffs did not have notice that the court planned to convert defendants' 

motion for dismissal into a motion for summary judgment. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-2267 Document: 010110615352 Date Filed: 04/29/2005 Page: 3