OPINION *

In this appeal Appellant seeks a declaration that the District Court incorrectly ruled that, he is not a “beneficiary of’ or “participant in” the employee benefit plan sponsored by his spouse’s employer, and, thus, lacks standing to sue under ERISA. We are not persuaded.

We need not recount the facts, which are well known to the parties. Sacchi makes a valiant attempt to draw on case-law to support his view that, because he was eligible to join the plan and but for Appellees’ wrongful conduct, he would have been designated a beneficiary under it, he has standing. He urges that he “may be eligible” or “may be entitled” to a benefit, or is a “putative” beneficiary within the purview of ERISA. However, the cases on which he relies do not support that proposition. Indeed, he cites and relies on the case of Coleman v. Champion International Corp., 992 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1993) but it actually supports the opposite view, as Ap-pellees note.

As the District Court correctly noted, “it is beyond dispute that 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a) entitles only a ‘participant or beneficiary* to institute a civil action for benefits against a plan administrator.” App. 012. We agree with the District Court that Sacchi is neither. Moreover, Sacchi’s claim that he would have become a beneficiary under the plan but for the allegedly wrongful actions of the Defendants is belied by the fact that Simoni did not in fact elect coverage for him when given the opportunity. We will therefore affirm the order of the District Court granting the motions to dismiss.