Hodas v. Sherburne
Case Date: 04/24/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-2189
|
[Not for Publication] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit ____________________ No. 96-2189 MARTIN HODAS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SHERBURNE, POWERS & NEEDHAM, P.C., ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________ ____________________ Matthew Cobb on brief for appellant. ____________ Gael Mahoney, Michael D. Weisman, Amy B. Rifkind, and Hill & _____________ ___________________ ________________ ______ Barlow on brief for appellees. ______ ____________________ April 24, 1997 ____________________ Per curiam. Having reviewed the parties' briefs Per curiam. ___ ______ and the appellate record for this case, we affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons stated in the August 16, 1996 memorandum and order dismissing the action on statute-of-limitations grounds. We add only the following. We find no merit to plaintiff's argument that the district court improperly considered matters outside the pleadings without converting defendants' motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ___ Plaintiff referenced but failed to submit with his complaint a pertinent document that defendants introduced in support of their 12(b)(6) motion. The court properly considered the document as part of the pleadings for the purposes of the motion to dismiss. See Romani v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 929 ___ ______ ______________________ F.2d 875, 879 n.3 (1st Cir. 1991); 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1327 at _______________________________ 762-63 (2d ed. 1990); see also Venture Assocs. Corp. v. ___ ____ ______________________ Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. _________________________ 1993)("Documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim."). Affirmed. Costs to appellees. Affirmed. Costs to appellees. ________ __________________ -2- 2 |