Lewis's 1983, 1984, 1987, and 2008 petitions to the Naval Discharge Review Board, as well as his suits filed in the District of Columbia and Court of Federal Claims); Lewis v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. 772 (2011); Lewis v. United States, 27 Fed.Cl. 104 (1992); Lewis v. Sec’y of the Navy, No. 89-cv-1446, 1990 WL 454624 (D.D.C. June 29, 1990). 3 .Mr. Lewis attached six exhibits to his complaint — exhibits that his complaint and subsequent motion for summary judgment reference explicitly. See generally CompL, ECF No. 1. This Court may consider the contents of exhibits attached to a complaint without • converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. See Young Women's Christian Ass’n of the Nat’l Capital Area, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. of Canada, 158 F.R.D. 6, 7 (D.D.C.1994) (<HOLDING>)). 4 . The writ of error coram nobis is "an
holding that where a complaint makes express reference to attachments that are central to the plaintiffs claims those documents may be considered on a motion to dismiss without converting it into a motion for summary judgment holding district court did not err by considering a contract central to the dispute without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment holding that although a district court may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss in one for summary judgment holding that plan documents could be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment even though the complaint referred only to the plan and not its associated documents holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss