PER CURIAM. Jo Ann Hoffmann appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(
B) dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000b(
b) and 1985 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (de novo review), we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons the district court stated. We note that even if Hoffmann filed her complaint on August 13, 2001, her claims arising in August 1998 would still fail because the relevant defendants would be entitled to absolute immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) (judicial immunity); Brodnicki v.
City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 (8th Cir.) (prosecutorial immunity), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 867, 117 S.Ct. 179, 136 L.Ed.2d 119 (1996). We also note that the magistrate judge could screen the complaint without Hoffmann’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). . The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Beverly S. Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.