complaint, Chenoweth states that at the time he made the arrest, he was acting on information from Kirby that West-Anderson “had picked up two twenty dollar bills after Joseph M. Poje had dropped it near [a] slot machine ... and then left the area.” This information was sufficient to provide arguable probable cause that West-Anderson retrieved the cash under circumstances giving her knowledge of or means of inquiry as to Poje’s rightful ownership. The court suggests that the reports attached to the complaint cannot be used to consider what Chenoweth knew and when he knew it. I disagree because West-Anderson’s complaint contains no contradictory allegations about what Chenoweth knew at the time he arrested her. See Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555, 561 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d
holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint holding that a court need not accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint holding that plaintiff was not prejudiced by defendants failure to disclose documents before her deposition because she had a unique familiarity with documents at issue holding that when a plaintiff attaches documents to her complaint containing statements by the defendant that conflict with the plaintiffs allegations the plaintiff is not required to adopt every word in the documents as true holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false