UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1941
VICTORIA A. JEDROWICZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GIANT FOOD INC.,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
FRANK PODGORSKI, Store Manager, in his offi-
cial capacity; KEVIN LONG, Assistant Store
Manager, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
No. 01-1133
VICTORIA A. JEDROWICZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GIANT FOOD INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ROYAL AHOLD; J. SAINSBURY (USA) HOLDINGS,
INCORPORATED; PETER MANOS, in his official
capacity; BRIAN KAMISCINSKI, District Manager
in his official capacity; FRANK PODGORSKI,
Store Manager in his official capacity,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-96-3562-WMN, CA-98-3899-WMN)
Submitted: June 22, 2001 Decided: July 9, 2001
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jo Ann P. Myles, Largo, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert G. Ames,
Connie N. Bertram, VENABLE, BAETJER, HOWARD & CIVILETTI, Washing-
ton, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Victoria A. Jedrowicz appeals
district court orders entered in the course of her litigating two
complaints against Giant Foods, Incorporated. In No. 00-1941, we
have reviewed the record and the district court orders and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Jedrowicz v. Giant Food, Inc., No. CA-96-3562-
WMN (D. Md. June 7, 2000). Likewise, in No. 01-1133, we have re-
viewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jedrowicz v.
Giant Food, Inc., No. CA-98-3899-WMN (D. Md. Dec. 21, 2000). In
No. 01-1133, we grant Appellee’s motion to file an attachment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3