UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT VICTORIA ELAINE BROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND; RICHARD J. WELSH, Major, Prince George's County Police Department; TERESA C.

CHAMBERS, Major, Prince George's No. 99-2254 County Police Department; MARK A. WRIGHT, Major, Prince George's County Police Department; ORLANDO D. BARNES, Major, Prince George's County Police Department; WILLIAM A. RICHARDS, Captain, Prince George's County Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

VICTORIA ELAINE BROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND; RICHARD J. WELSH, Major, Prince George's County Police Department; TERESA C.

CHAMBERS, Major, Prince George's No. 99-2332 County Police Department; MARK A. WRIGHT, Major, Prince George's County Police Department; ORLANDO D. BARNES, Major, Prince George's County Police Department; WILLIAM A. RICHARDS, Captain, Prince George's County Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-98-122-CCB) Submitted: August 31, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL James Brewster Hopewell, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellant. Sean D. Wallace, County Attorney, John A. Bielec, Deputy County Attor- ney, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Victoria Elaine Brock, an African-American female, filed suit against her employer, Prince George's County Police Department, and five employees alleging racial and sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Right Act, due process violations, racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1981 (1994), and state law claims for intentional infliction of emo- tional distress, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and tortious interference. The court entered summary judgment against Brock and dismissed the action. Brock now appeals that order and two subse- quent orders denying her "motion to revise memorandum" and award- ing a bill of costs in favor of Defendants in the amount of $4,043.05.

We affirm.

On appeal, Brock alleges that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on her unlawful racial and sexual discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment claims. We review a grant of sum- mary judgment de novo. See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the mov- ing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

We have carefully reviewed the written submissions in light of this standard and find that the district court's thorough opinion was well- reasoned. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court's orders on the reasoning of the district court. (J.A. at 46-59). We dis- pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED