had been referred to Healy and Gardner, Fitzgerald was no longer functioning as a prosecutor. Cf. Kulwicki, 969 F.2d at 1467 (affirming denial of absolute immunity because the prosecutor was no longer assigned to the case when the challenged activity occurred). Moreover, the forwarding of materials constitutes an “administrative” function which is somewhat analogous to an investigative officer supplying a prosecutor with evidence discovered during the course of an investigation. However, Cignetti’s claims based on the second, fifth and sixth acts are barred by absolute immunity. With respect to the second and the fifth acts, it has long been settled that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for initiating and pursuing a prosecution. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. 984 (<HOLDING>); Butz, 438 U.S. at 515, 98 S.Ct. 2894 (“The
holding that state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity in performing quasiprosecutorial functions connected with the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings holding that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from  1983 suits for initiating a prosecution and presenting the case at trial holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity holding that officials charged with the duty of executing a facially valid court order enjoy absolute immunity