
    Tony L. NOLES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-2396.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 20, 2014.
    Filed: Feb. 7, 2014.
    
      Hans Eric Pullen, Lane & Muse, Hot Springs, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jonathan Ryan Clark, Michael McGau-ghran, Ruben Montemayor, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Tony L. Noles appeals from the district court’s order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir.2013). Specifically, we find that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) credibility determination is entitled to deference, because it was based on multiple valid reasons. See Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1065 (8th Cir.2012). Further, we disagree with Noles that the ALJ was required to arranged for a consultative examination, see Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir.1995) (reversal for failure to develop record is warranted only where such failure is prejudicial or unfair); and that the ALJ improperly relied on the opinions of two non-examining physicians as to Noles’s residual functional capacity, see Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 705 (8th Cir.2001) (weight accorded to opinions from non-examining sources depends upon degree to which they provide supporting explanations). Finally, we reject as merit-less Noles’s contentions that he met the criteria for the listings he cites, and that the ALJ improperly relied on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to find him not disabled. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 
      
      . The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
     