Sopher’s motion to dismiss. The Walkers are free to pursue their state law claims against Sopher as well as their cause of action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for those allegations relating to Sopher’s failure to disclose or maintain exculpatory evidence and for other misconduct wMch allegedly occurred in the investigatory phase of these proceedings. Sopher is otherwise immune from suit here. 1 . Although Jack and Eleanor Walker included numerous exhibits to their response, these attachments add nothing substantive to their complaint which contains over one hundred pages of allegations and, accordingly, the Court declines this opportunity to convert Sopher’s motion into one for summary judgment. See Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc. v. Wilson, 942 F.2d 247, 252 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The tissue samples mysteriously
holding that a rule 12b6 motion is only converted to a motion for summary judgment when a court accepts and considers matters outside of the pleadings holding that only motions filed under 12b6 can be converted to a summary judgment motion holding that where a court considering a rule 12b6 motion relies on matters outside the pleading the motion must be treated as a rule 56 motion for summary judgment holding that by considering matters outside of the pleadings the trial court converted a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion holding that district courts consideration of matters outside the pleadings converted the defendants rule 12 motion into one for summary judgment