
    Kenneth R. BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen E. PETERSON; Danny E. Mixon; Todd Hernandez, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-30293
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 12, 2006.
    Kenneth R. Bradford, Scotlandville, LA, pro se.
    
      Before SMITH, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kenneth R. Bradford, East Baton Rouge Parish Prison inmate # 100094, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, alleging claims of kidnaping, false imprisonment, and illegal arrest. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A(b)(l) & (2), a district court is to review a prisoner’s complaint and to dismiss the complaint if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” or if it “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” § 1915A(b)(l)(2). This court reviews dismissals under § 1915A de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.2005).

The district court did not err in dismissing Bradford’s claims against Judge Hernandez on grounds of absolute judicial immunity because the alleged acts of Judge Hernandez were judicial in nature and were not taken in the complete absence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 515-17 (5th Cir.2005); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124-25 (5th Cir.1993). Nor did the district court err in dismissing Bradford’s claims against Peterson because her alleged acts were in furtherance of the prosecution of the case. See Brooks v. George County, Miss., 84 F.3d 157, 168 (5th Cir.1996); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).

Because it was apparent from the face of Bradford’s complaint that his claims against Mixon are time-barred, the district court’s dismissal of those claims under § 1915A(b)(l) was appropriate. See Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019-20 (5th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     