UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1699

CAROLYN E. O’CONNOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

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.

No. 06-1791

CAROLYN E. O’CONNOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

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. No. 06-1851

CAROLYN E. O’CONNOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

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.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00330-HEH)

Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 28, 2006

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carolyn E. O’Connor, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - 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

- 3 -