[Not for Publication]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,

, 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.,

(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