
    Dawn FIGMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 01-2482.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2002.
    Decided March 4, 2002.
    
      Dawn Figman, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, Virginia; Timothy J. Nieman, Rhoads & Simon, L.L.P., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Dawn Figman appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendant on her claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2001) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp.2001), and denying her subsequent “Motion to Reinstate,” which the district court construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Figman’s motion to file a formal pro se brief and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Figman v. Sprint, No. CA-01-3-3 (W.D.Va. Nov. 6, 2001; Nov. 30, 2001). 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 decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  