USCA1 Opinion

[Not for Publication]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

________________

Barlow on brief for appellees.

______

____________________

Hil
___

April 24, 1997

____________________

Per curiam.
Per curiam.
___ ______

Having reviewed

the parties'

briefs

and the

appellate

judgment

of the

for

this

district court

reasons stated in

dismissing the

record

case,

we

affirm

for substantially

the August 16,

the

the same

1996 memorandum and

order

action on statute-of-limitations grounds.

We

add only the following.

We find

district

pleadings

court

no merit to plaintiff's

improperly

considered

without converting

argument that the

matters

defendants' motion

outside the

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.

document as part

of the

The

court properly

pleadings for the

considered the

purposes of

the

motion to dismiss.

F.2d

875, 879

Arthur R.

762-63

See Romani v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 929

___ ______
______________________

n.3 (1st

Cir. 1991);

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure

_______________________________

(2d ed.

1990);

see also
___ ____

Zenith Data Sys. Corp.,

_________________________

1993)("Documents

dismiss

5 Charles A.

that a

are considered

referred to

987

F.2d

429,

431

her claim.").

Costs to appellees.
Costs to appellees.
__________________

(7th

to a

the pleadings

in the plaintiff's complaint and

Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________

1327 at

Venture Assocs. Corp.

______________________

defendant attaches

part of

Wright &

v.

Cir.

motion to

if they

are

are central to

-22