Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): matter is before us on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, we cannot look beyond McCormick’s complaint. See Sutton, 173 F.3d at 1236 (“The court’s function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is ... to assess whether the plaintiffs complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” (quotation omitted)). McCormick has never filed an amended complaint containing a factual allegation that the final shift change occurred on January 24, nor has he filed a motion seeking to amend his complaint. In th was aware of the alleged typographical error when he filed his brief in opposition to appellants’ motions to dismiss. At that point in the proceedings, he could have amended his complaint without the permission of the district court. See Glenn, 868 F.2d at 370 (<HOLDING>). McCormick had a reasonable opportunity to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss (B) holding appellate courts have jurisdiction over the district courts orders rejecting as a matter of law qualified immunity raised in a motion to dismiss (C) holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion (D) holding that appellants could have amended as of right after they received the motion to dismiss and prior to the trial courts decision (E) recognizing that they could be amended anyway
Output (English): holding appellate courts have jurisdiction over the district courts orders rejecting as a matter of law qualified immunity raised in a motion to dismiss