Task: Text Completion
Input (English): should "cease this activity asap!!!” 6 . As one basis for its motion to dismiss, the Board asserted that it, its members, its staff, and the administrative prosecutor had absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit under Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245 (4th Cir.1999). Because the court regarded the record as inadequate to evaluate the applicability of any immunities at that early stage of the proceedings, it rejected the immunity argument without prejudice to the Board’s right to reassert it on summary judgment. At present, the Maryland appellate cases do not unequivocally resolve the question of whether the Board had the right to an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order rejecting a claim of quasi-judicial immunity. See State v. Keller-Bee, 224 Md.App. 1, 3-5, 119 A.3d 80 (2015) (<HOLDING>). In any event, the Board did not appeal. 7 . 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity by defendants who were not public officials (B) holding that erroneously admitted evidence may be considered when ruling on a motion to dismiss (C) holding that immediate right to appeal lies from denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (D) holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity (E) holding that court clerk had right to take immediate appeal of ruling denying motion to dismiss based on absolute judicial immunity
Output (English): (E)