OPINION

Marie Hensley appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). We affirm.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards employed by the district court. Ellis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 228, 232 (4th Cir. 1997). The denial of benefits under ERISA is reviewed de novo unless the plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to construe the terms of the plan or to determine whether a participant is eligible for benefits. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 111, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). If the plan confers discretionary authority, the decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and the decision will not be disturbed if it is reasonable. Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 201 F.3d 335, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2000).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix and the district court’s opinion. We find that the district court’s opinion is well-reasoned and agree that MetLife’s decision to deny Hensley benefits under the Plan was reasonable and well-supported by the medical documentation at the time of the review. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the *286 district court. Hensley v. Eastman Long Term Disability Plan, No. CA-01-122-1 (W.D.Va. Apr. 23, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.