
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                                [Not for Publication]                            United States Court of Appeals                                For the First Circuit                                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  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
