conduct.” McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir.1972); see Forrester, 484 U.S. at 224, 108 S.Ct. at 542, 98 L.Ed.2d at 563 (discussing the analysis of the immunity shield and noting that “we examine the nature of the functions with which a particular official or class of officials has been lawfully entrusted, and we seek to evaluate the effect that exposure to particular forms of liability would likely have on the appropriate exercise of those functions”). Similarly, it has been observed that affording immunity to individuals considered to be judicial officers serves the purpose for which the concept of judicial immunity was created, namely that individuals who are “necessary to the proper administration of justice” are given protection. Gill, 352 Md. at 762, 724 A.2d at 92 (<HOLDING>). The critical determination to be made in this
holding that the summary rejection of a witness as noncredible is prejudicial and the proper administration of justice requires more holding that the plaintiff was entitled to conclude that the district court regarded the motion as timely this being the case unique circumstances exist requiring that her motion be regarded as  effectively terminating the running of the time for appeal holding that the extension of judicial immunity to witnesses attorneys and parties  was regarded by us as necessary to the proper administration of justice holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that where the plaintiffs copyright infringement claim was without a reasonable legal basis an award of attorneys fees to the defendants was a proper exercise of judicial discretion