O'Connor v. Young, No. 06-1699 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1699 CAROLYN E. O CONNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM G. YOUNG, individually and in his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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
