[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-10754 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-22750-MGC

EUGENE MORRIS, 

a.k.a. Mercury, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE 

RETIREMENT BOARD, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(July 13, 2012)

Before HULL, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Case: 12-10754 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 1 of 4 
PER CURIAM:

Eugene “Mercury” Morris, proceeding pro se, appeals from the grant of

summary judgment in favor of the National Football League Retirement Board in

his claim for benefits under the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement

Plan, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29

U.S.C. § 1132(a). Morris contends the district court erred in determining that a

1991 Settlement Agreement and Specific Release, which settled his tort claims

relating to disability benefits against the Retirement Plan, did not affect his

retirement benefits. Morris asserts the district court should not have granted

deference to the Retirement Board in reviewing its decision, because the 1991

Settlement is not a part of the Retirement Plan and therefore is not governed by

ERISA, and that a proper de novo review would reveal that the 1991 Settlement

restored his full retirement benefits.

ERISA provides no standard for reviewing decisions of plan administrators

or fiduciaries. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 (1989).

Based on Supreme Court guidance, however, we have established a six-step

framework to guide courts in reviewing an ERISA plan administrator’s benefits

decisions, as follows:

(1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim

2

Case: 12-10754 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 2 of 4 
administrator's benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court

disagrees with the administrator's decision); if it is not, then end the

inquiry and affirm the decision.

(2) If the administrator's decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then

determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims;

if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision.

(3) If the administrator's decision is “de novo wrong” and he was

vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether

“reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under

the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard).

(4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse

the administrator's decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then

determine if he operated under a conflict of interest.

(5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision.

(6) If there is a conflict, the conflict should merely be a factor for the

court to take into account when determining whether an

administrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Blankenship v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 644 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir.) cert.

denied, 132 S. Ct. 849 (2011). 

The Retirement Board’s decision was de novo correct, and thus survives

scrutiny under either a de novo or arbitrary and capricious standard. The

Retirement Board correctly concluded that Section 9 of the 1991 Settlement does

not affect in any way Morris’s retirement benefits, as the plain language indicates

that its only purpose was to prevent the 1991 Settlement from waiving,

3

Case: 12-10754 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 3 of 4 
diminishing, altering or modifying his then-existing retirement benefits. The

Retirement Board was therefore correct in deciding that Morris was not entitled to

100% of his retirement benefits because he had previously received a 25%

reduction of his retirement benefits in 1980 in the form of an Early Payment

Benefit. Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the

National Football League Retirement Board. 

AFFIRMED.

4

Case: 12-10754 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 4 of 4