UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1941 VICTORIA A. JEDROWICZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GIANT FOOD INC., Defendant - Appellee,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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