the content of his conversation with Wise, and by detailing the unusual circumstances surrounding his transfer to Donaldson. See Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965. Accordingly, regardless of whether Jemison’s retaliation claim ultimately has merit, the district court erred by dismissing Jemison’s complaint with prejudice before providing him with an opportunity to amend. Finally, we note that we do not consider the exhibits that Jemison has attached to his brief on appeal. Because Jemison failed to submit these exhibits to the district court, they are not relevant to the issue of whether the court erred in dismissing his complaint. See Brooks v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1368-69 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). VACATED AND REMANDED. 1 . Jemison also raised
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 that in considering a rule 12b6 motion a court may only rely on the complaint its proper attachments documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice holding that a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss should be treated as a motion for summary judgment when plaintiffs counsel relied upon facts outside the four corners of the complaint during oral argument of the motion holding that 1 the complaint is deemed to include any documents incorporated in it by reference and any document upon which it solely relies and which is integral to the complaint and that the court may consider such documents on a motion to dismiss pursuant to fedrcivp 12b6 holding that the analysis of a motion to dismiss under fedrcivp 12b6 is limited primarily to the face of the complaint and attachments thereto