UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1476

BARBARA BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA A. MCCORMICK; MCA/UNIVERSAL MERCHAN- DISING, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Universal Studios Consumer Products, Incorporated; THE PATCHWORK PLACE, INCORPORATED; THE GREENWICH WORKSHOP, INCORPORATED; JOHN SIMPKINS; MARKETING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISES, INCORPO- RATED; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INCORPORATED; AMBLIN’ ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

WELLER/GROSSMAN PRODUCTIONS, INCORPORATED; HOME AND GARDEN TELEVISION, a/k/a HGTV, a sub- sidiary of the E.W. Scripps Company,

Defendants.

No. 00-1545

BARBARA BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus PATRICIA A. MCCORMICK; MCA/UNIVERSAL MERCHAN- DISING, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Universal Studios Consumer Products, Incorporated; THE PATCHWORK PLACE, INCORPORATED; MARKETING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; UNIVER- SAL CITY STUDIOS, INCORPORATED; AMBLIN’ ENTER- TAINMENT, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellants,

and

THE GREENWICH WORKSHOP, INCORPORATED; JOHN SIMPKINS; WELLER/GROSSMAN PRODUCTIONS, INCOR- PORATED; HOME AND GARDEN TELEVISION, a/k/a HGTV, a subsidiary of the E.W. Scripps Company,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 3450-L)

Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 12, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Ann Young, Beverly Hills, California, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Barbara Brown appeals the district court’s order of judgment

in her copyright infringement action, and the Defendants cross-

appeal. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. McCormick, No. CA-

96-3450-L (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-

sional process.

AFFIRMED

3