John PERGOSKY, Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; Retirement Plan of Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, 133 F. App'x 827

OPINION PER CURIAM. Plaintiff employee asks us to review the District Court’s grant of the employer’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs suit for employee benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We will affirm. Inasmuch as we are writing only for the parties we need not set forth the background of this dispute except insofar as may be helpful to our brief discussion.

The District Court concluded that the instant suit was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel based upon plaintiffs prior suit against the defendant under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act and the settlement agreement that terminated that litigation. The District Court has filed a very thoughtful and thorough Memorandum and Order dated March 2, 2004, wherein the court explains why the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes defendant from raising the instant claims. We will affirm the District Court’s dismissal substantially for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order.