Code Ann. §§ 14.003-.004, 14.010 (West 2002 & Supp. 2012). The trial court, though, only granted "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss based upon prosecutorial and absolute immunity.” Because we conclude the trial court’s rulings were correct, it is not necessary for us to determine whether Allen's brief assigns, for appellate review, any error in failing to dismiss based on Charleston's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 14. 5 . Under the federal standards for qualified immunity, a prosecutor would be "shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (<HOLDING>); see Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc.,
recognizing absolute immunity to suits under 42 usc  1988 holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity holding that person in 42 usc  1983 does not include states recognizing objective standard applicable under 42 usc  1983 and suits under united states constitution holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983