Jedrowicz v. Giant Foods Inc

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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