OPINION

Appellant Abdul Nedab appeals from a District Court order dismissing his case as “legally frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” ** The Appellee has filed a motion for summary action. Because no substantial question is presented, we will grant the Appellee’s motion and summarily affirm. L.A.R. 27.4.

In his complaint, Nedab alleges that several guards at SCI-Forest, along with a local officer, beat him on March 3, 2005, injuring him severely. *** He claims that the incident was recorded on the prison’s video system. He seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief against the Tionesta District Attorney, Barbara Lit-ten, on the grounds that she failed to investigate his private criminal complaint against the guards, and that she failed to bring criminal charges against them. Adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the District Court dismissed the complaint holding that Litten’s activities are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and, thus, receive absolute immunity. This appeal followed. ****

We agree with the District Court that Litten is entitled to absolute immunity for all claims related to her decision not to prosecute. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). To the extent that Nedab’s complaint can be read to allege violations connected to investigatory or administrative functions, he cannot maintain a section 1983 suit because the facts of his complaint do not demonstrate that any constitutional right has been violated. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F.3d 595, 599-600 (3d Cir. 2005).