
    Linda L. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD-FLAGSHIP SERVICES, INCORPORATED; Dean Clifton, individually, and as manager, agent, partner, shareholder or director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated; Dan Clark, individually, and as manager, agent, vice president, partner, shareholder, and director of Richard-FIagship Services Incorporated; Stan Sisson, individually, and as manager, agent, Human Resources Director, partner, shareholder, and director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated, and F.A. Richard & Associates, Incorporated; Francis A. Richard, individually, and as manager, agent, partner, shareholder, and director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated, and F.A. Richard & Associates, Incorporated; F.A. Richard & Associates, Incorporated, a Louisiana corporation, doing business in Virginia, and as an agent, partner, owner, shareholder and director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated; Steve Johnson, individually, and as agent, president, chief executive officer, partner, shareholder and/or director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated, and The Flagship Group, Limited; Robert O’Sullivan, individually, and as agent, vice president, partner, shareholder/and or director of RichardFIagship Services, Incorporated, and The Flagship Group, Limited; The Flagship Group, Limited, a corporation doing business in Virginia, and as agent, partner, owner, shareholder, and director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees. Linda L. Kennedy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated; Dean Clifton, individually, and as manager, agent, partner, shareholder or director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated; Dan Clark, individually, and as manager, agent, vice president, partner, shareholder, and director of Richard-FIagship Services Incorporated; Stan Sisson, individually, and as manager, agent, Human Resources Director, partner, shareholder and director of Richard Flagship Services, Incorporated, and F.A. Richard & Associates, Incorporated; F A Richard & Associates, Incorporated, a Louisiana corporation, doing business in Virginia, and as an agent, partner, owner, shareholder and director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated; Steve Johnson, individually, and as agent, president, chief executive officer, partner, shareholder and/or director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated, and The Flagship Group, Limited; Robert O’Sullivan, individually, and as agent, vice president, partner, shareholder/and or director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated, and The Flagship Group, Limited; The Flagship Group, Limited, a corporation doing business in Virginia, and as agent, partner, owner, shareholder, and director of Richard-FIagship Services, Incorporated; Francis A. Richard, individually, and as manager, agent, partner, shareholder, and director of RichardFIagship Services, Incorporated, and F.A. Richard & Associates, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 00-2131, 00-2300.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 23, 2001.
    
      Linda L. Kennedy, pro se. Robert L. O’Donnell, Arlene F. Klinedinst, Christopher Ambrosio, Vandeventer Black, L.L.P., Norfolk, VA, for appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Linda L. Kennedy seeks to appeal the district court’s orders, ordering costs against her, denying Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees, and denying her motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kennedy v. Richard Flagship Servs., Inc., No. CA-98-602-2 (E.D. Va. July 25, Aug. 25, & Sept. 20, 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 decisional process. We also deny Kennedy’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Because Kennedy’s brief on appeal is unclear, we have liberally construed her appeal to object to all three of the district court's orders.
     