
    Eric Matthew GAUTREAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-1628
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 31, 2017
    Decided: April 21, 2017
    John 0. Goss, GOSS AND FENTRESS, PLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Regional Chief Counsel, Taryn Jasner, Supervisory Attorney, Gregg W. Marsano, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Virginia L. Van Valkenburg, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Matthew Gautreau appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Gautreau’s application for disability benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by substantial evidence; “[wjhere conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled,” we defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Against this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gautreau v. Colvin, No. 2:15-cv-00081-RBS-DEM, 2016 WL 1298122 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 31, 2016; entered Apr. 1, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  