are ‘functionally comparable’ to those of judges” and who “ ‘exercise a discretionary judgment’ as a part of their function.” Id. at 436, 113 S.Ct. 2167 (citations omitted). The Court further noted that the application of the functional approach in granting judicial immunity does not hinge on the importance of the court officer’s duty to the judicial process, but rather focuses on the amount of subjective discretion that the officer exercises in the performance of a particular job. See id. at 436-37, 113 S.Ct. 2167. The Court framed its decision broadly and held that court reporters do not exercise the kind of judgment that is protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity. Id. at 437, 113 S.Ct. 2167; see also State ex rel. Philyaw v. Williams, 190 W.Va. 272, 438 S.E.2d 64, 67 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The United States Supreme Court’s explication
holding rookerfeldman doctrine deprived district court of jurisdiction to review decision of west virginia state bar recognizing antoine and cautioning that court reporters do not enjoy judicial immunity under west virginia law holding that state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution holding that officials charged with the duty of executing a facially valid court order enjoy absolute immunity recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction