Case Name: Carolyn E. O'CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William G. YOUNG, individually and in his capacity as Chief Judge; Joseph L. Tauro, individually and in his capacity as a federal employee/judge; Choicepoint/CP Commercial Specialists, Incorporated; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees; Carolyn E. O'Connor, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. William G. Young, individually and in his capacity as Chief Judge; Joseph L. Tauro, individually and in his capacity as a federal employee/judge; Choicepoint/CP Commercial Specialists, Incorporated; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees; Carolyn E. O'Connor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William G. Young, individually and in his capacity as Chief Judge; Joseph L. Tauro, individually and in his capacity as a federal employee/judge; Choicepoint/CP Commercial Specialists, Incorporated; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-28
Citations: 207 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: Nos. 06-1699, 06-1791, 06-1851
Parties: Carolyn E. O’CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William G. YOUNG, individually and in his capacity as Chief Judge; Joseph L. Tauro, individually and in his capacity as a federal employee/judge; Choicepoint/CP Commercial Specialists, Incorporated; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees. Carolyn E. O’Connor, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. William G. Young, individually and in his capacity as Chief Judge; Joseph L. Tauro, individually and in his capacity as a federal employee/judge; Choicepoint/CP Commercial Specialists, Incorporated; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees. Carolyn E. O’Connor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William G. Young, individually and in his capacity as Chief Judge; Joseph L. Tauro, individually and in his capacity as a federal employee/judge; Choicepoint/CP Commercial Specialists, Incorporated; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
Carolyn E. O’CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William G. YOUNG, individually and in his capacity as Chief Judge; Joseph L. Tauro, individually and in his capacity as a federal employee/judge; Choicepoint/CP Commercial Specialists, Incorporated; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees. Carolyn E. O’Connor, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. William G. Young, individually and in his capacity as Chief Judge; Joseph L. Tauro, individually and in his capacity as a federal employee/judge; Choicepoint/CP Commercial Specialists, Incorporated; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees. Carolyn E. O’Connor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William G. Young, individually and in his capacity as Chief Judge; Joseph L. Tauro, individually and in his capacity as a federal employee/judge; Choicepoint/CP Commercial Specialists, Incorporated; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 06-1699, 06-1791, 06-1851.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 28, 2006.
Carolyn E. O’Connor, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn E. O'Connor appeals the district court's orders dismissing as frivolous her employment discrimination complaint and denying her motions for reconsideration and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. See O'Connor v. Young, No. 3:06-cv-00330-HEH (E.D. Va. May 31, 2006; June 27, 2006; June 28, 2006). 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.
DISMISSED.