Second, these materials fall within the “narrowly defined category of materials a court can consider without converting a[n FRCP] 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment. This category includes exhibits attached to the complaint, undisputed documents relied upon by the plaintiff, other items appearing in the record of the case, and matters of public record.” Stuler v. United States, No. 07-642, 2008 WL 957009, at *2 (W.D.Pa. Apr. 8, 2008) (citation omitted). Senate reports, court filings, and resolutions passed by municipalities are public records. See Biomed. Patent Mgmt. Corp. v. Cal., Dep’t of Health Servs., 505 F.3d 1328, 1331 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“[C]ourt filings ... are matters of public record....”); Jones v. Butler, No. 09-03128, 2009 WL 2461885, at *5 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 11, 2009) (<HOLDING>); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 519 F.Supp.2d 1072,
holding that a notice because it was docketed should be considered a matter of public record holding that bond and miller did not apply because the plaintiff was appointed to the city council by the mayor rather than elected by the public holding that neighbors aesthetic concerns could constitute compelling evidence for a city council recognizing that a city council resolution is unquestionably a matter of public record holding that an employment contract between an outgoing city council and the city manager was void on public policy grounds because it attempted to take away the governmental or legislative power of the incoming council to appoint and remove public officers