pon which relief could be granted or for Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Strawser v. Atkins, 290 F.3d 720, (4th Cir. 2002), 2002 U.S.App. LEXIS 9648; Greenless v. Almond, 277 F.3d 601 (1st Cir. 2002); Harris v. Owens, 264 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2001); Watson v. Texas, 261 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2001); McClendon v. Georgia Dep't of Cmty. Health, 261 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2001); Tyler v. Douglas, 280 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2001); Floyd v. Thompson, 227 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2000); Lewis v. State ex rel. Miller, 2002 WL 663711 (Iowa Ct.App. 2002), 2002 Iowa App. LEXIS 436; Cardenas v. Anzai, 128 F.Supp.2d 704 (2001); Clark v. Stovall, 158 F.Supp.2d 1215 (D.C.Kan. 2001); Skillings v. Illinois, 121 F.Supp.2d 1235 (C.D.Ill. 2000); Martin v. New Mexico, 197 F.R.D. 694 (D.N.M. 2000); Brown v. State, 617 N.W.2d 421 (Minn.Ct.App. 2000); State v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App.4th 597, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 735 (2000); Oliva v. Florida, No. 99-2234 (Leon Co. Cir. Ct., 2d Cir. May 12, 2000); Gomer v.Philip Morris Inc., 106 F.Supp.2d 1262 (M.D.Ala. 2000) ( Eleventh Amendment immunity and no valid claim). In one case, the state's motions to dismiss have been denied.
The Court is not required, however, to accept unsupported legal conclusions as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, or to read facts into the Complaint which are not properly pled by the Plaintiff. See Gomer v. Philip Morris Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1268 (M.D. Ala. 2000); Beck v. Interstate Brands Corp., 953 F.2d 1275, 1276 (11th Cir. 1992). III. Discussion
The Court is not required, however, to accept unsupported legal conclusions as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. See Gomer v. Philip Morris Inc., 106 F. Supp.2d 1262, 1268 (M.D.Ala. 2000). The Court can also consider any documents referred to in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint that are central to their claims.
The Court is not required, however, to accept unsupported legal conclusions as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. See Gomer v. Philip Morris Inc., 106 F. Supp.2d 1262, 1268 (M.D. Ala. 2000). The Court can also consider any documents referred to in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint that are central to their claims.
[2] As numerous cases indicate, a Medicaid recipient is entitled to a share under the distribution scheme only when the state recovers excess funds (above Medic-aid costs) in a derivative action upon assignment from the recipient. See, e.g., McClendon v. Georgia Department of Community Health, 261 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2001); Watson v. Texas, 261 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2001); Floyd v. Thompson, 227 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2000); Gomer v. Philip Morris, Inc., 106 F.Supp.2d 1262 (M.D.Fla. 2000). These cases, in addressing distribution claims in connection with the Master Settlement Agreement, have consistently and unequivocally held that Medicaid recipients are not entitled to a share of such proceeds.