
    Robert J. McCORMICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-1467.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 31, 2016.
    Decided: May 2, 2016.
    
      William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, NC, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, R.A. Renter, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Elisa F. Do-nohoe, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert J. McCormick appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of McCormick’s applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. 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. See 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 magistrate judge. McCormick v. Colvin, No. 7:13-cv-00234-RJ, 2015 WL 1471269 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2015). 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. 
      
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
     