[Not for Publication]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