it was included as an exhibit appended to Nadworny's complaint. It was also cited by Shaw's and Al-bertson's in their memoranda in support of their motion to dismiss and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to remand. It is well established that, under these circumstances, the Court’s consideration of the appended documents does not convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgement. See LoCicero v. Leslie, 948 F.Supp. 10, 12 (D.Mass.1996); see also Fudge v. Penthouse Int’l Ltd., 840 F.2d 1012, 1015 (1st Cir.1988). 2 . The fact that these two decisions are unpublished does not, of course, subtract from their persuasive authority. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, 899-905 (8th Cir.2000) (R. Arnold, J.), vacated as moot, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir.2000) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); see also Alshrafi v. American Airlines, Inc.,
recognizing that we ordinarily do not accord precedential value to our unpublished decisions and that such decisions are entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning citation omitted holding that unpublished opinions have precedential effect holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value at best and not precedential holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value holding that opinions accompanying the denial of certiorari cannot have the same effect as decisions on the merits