doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply here because defendant Furse was not acting in the scope of her employment with Covington during the prosecution of Ficken. Id. at 8-10. The plaintiffs respond that “since the District of Columbia ... is not entitled to absolute immunity for its inappropriate actions which inflicted unjustified harm upon Plaintiffs, neither should a prosecutor who represent als performing functions analogous to those of a prosecutor. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 515, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (observing that “agency officials performing certain functions analogous to those of a prosecutor should be able to claim absolute immunity with respect to such acts”); see also Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335-36, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, this Circuit has held that absolute
holding that a prison physician who prepared an evaluation of an inmate pursuant to a judges request was functioning as an arm of the court and as such he was an integral part of the judicial process and is protected by the same absolute judicial immunity that protects judge connelly holding that the nevada state board of medical examiners and its members are functionally comparable to judges and prosecutors  and are entitled to absolute immunity for their quasijudicial acts holding that absolute immunity protects  judges  so long as their acts are judicial  in nature internal quotation omitted holding that all persons who are integral parts of the judicial process such as witnesses judges and prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity