conspiracy by all involved to deprive Mr. Terry of his rights by engaging in alleged fraudulent or unethical conduct. II. FAILURE OF SCAT TO APPEAR THROUGH LICENSED COUNSEL Under well established federal law, “a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993). Under this rule, a corporation is not permitted to appear pro se. Id. Numerous cases have considered and affirmed this principle. See, e.g., Plimpton v. Cooper, 141 F.Supp.2d 573, 575 (W.D.N.C.2001) (dismissing claims brought pro se on behalf of a corporation based on lack of licensed counsel), aff'd, 21 Fed.Appx. 159 (4th Cir.2001); Carrico v. Village of Sugar Mountain, 114 F.Supp.2d 422, 424 (W.D.N.C.2000) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 13 Fed.Appx. 79 (4th Cir.2001);
holding that claims against corporate officers for mismanagement belong to the corporation holding that a corporate plaintiffs claims must be dismissed on the ground of failure of any attorney to appear for the corporation holding that in the context of the federal tort claims act claims dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but for the existence of a defense holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well