for each alleged misrepresentation or omission, “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2) (emphasis added). “Moreover, the complaint must allege facts supporting a strong inference of scienter for each defendant with respect to each violation.” Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir.2008) (emphasis added) (citing Phillips v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 374 F.3d 1015, 1016 (11th Cir.2004)). Courts may consider materials that are incorporated by reference into a complaint without converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment if the document is (1) central to plaintiffs claim and (2) undisputed. Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799,
holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing 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 the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding district court not required to uncover disputed facts when considering summary judgment motion 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