Opinion ID: 201479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review, by court of appeals, of district court's decision

Text: 8 We begin by determining the proper standard of review. The district court's grant of summary judgment is, of course, reviewed de novo, with all inferences resolved in favor of John Hancock. See Rodriguez-Abreu v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 986 F.2d 580, 583 (1st Cir.1993). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine dispute as to material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. 9 The ERISA statute directs the district court to confine its analysis to the terms of the plan. ERISA authorizes a participant to bring an action to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.  29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). The identity of the plan is thus a material fact, and we must determine whether a genuine issue exists as to that identity.