Benjamin R. Townsend, Petitioner-appellant, v. State of Maryland, Respondent-appellee, 8 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1993)

OPINION

Benjamin R. Townsend, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing Townsend's action for failure to supplement his complaint. While Townsend did supplement his complaint prior to the entry of the district court's order of dismissal, our review of the record discloses that this appeal is without merit.^*  First, none of the Defendants named by Townsend in his supplemental complaint were amenable to damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (state immune under Eleventh Amendment); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (judges absolutely immune); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors immune for actions undertaken in prosecutorial capacity). In addition, to the extent that Townsend raised habeas claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), those claims were properly dismissed without prejudice because they were not filed on the forms required by the district court. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of probable cause to appeal and affirm the dismissal on other grounds. 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