to deprive him of his property are insufficient to state a claim of constitutional dimensions. The district court was correct in reaching the merits of the case and in deciding to dismiss it with prejudice. We agree with the district court that Mr. Steele cannot frame a valid Bivens claim. Finally, we conclude that the district court’s decision to dismiss the action without holding a hearing was well within its discretion, particularly since only questions of law were before the court. We note that there is no right to an oral hearing under Rule 12(b)(6). Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 136 F.3d 313, 315-316 (2d Cir.1998). Whether to grant such a hearing is left to the discretion of the district court judge. Id. at 316; cf. Geear v. Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the
holding that motions to dismiss should have been converted into motions for summary judgment where the district court relied upon contract documents submitted by the defendant holding that the trial court grants or denies motions for summary judgment on the basis of what is contained in the motions for summary judgment and the responses thereto holding summary judgment motions in abeyance for possible evidentiary hearing holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by courts review of documents submitted by parties recognizing that a district courts review is limited to the agency record submitted and that no de novo evidentiary hearing is permitted