motion to supplement the appendix. 6 . In light of our review of all the claims together and our disposition of this case after briefing, we will deny the motion for sum-maty action. The motion to supplement the appendix is granted. 4 . Although Voneida did not list the date of his son's federal judgment of conviction, as we stated above, the date was a proper subject for judicial notice. We note, however, that an alternative basis, prosecutorial immunity, supports the dismissal of the claims based on statements made by prosecutors in the grand jury (or other court) proceedings. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 490-92, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (discussing the scope of prosecutorial immunity); see also Erie Telecomms. v. City of Erie, Pa., 853 F.2d 1084, 1089 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). 5 . On appeal, Voneida also presents an
recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds holding that we may affirm on an alternative basis supported by the record holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court