Case Name: Theophilus BLACKSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen VOGRIN, Individually and Officially, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-06
Citations: 404 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 10-6736
Parties: Theophilus BLACKSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen VOGRIN, Individually and Officially, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 718–718

Head Matter:
Theophilus BLACKSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen VOGRIN, Individually and Officially, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-6736.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 6, 2010.
Theophilus Blackston, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theophilus Blackston filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint alleging that a prosecutor violated his privacy rights by revealing medical information during the sentencing hearing in Blackston's criminal prosecution. A prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer who enjoys absolute immunity when performing prosecutorial functions as an advocate for the state. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). We therefore affirm the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Blackston's complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.