Tammy Campbell appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to uphold the Commissioner’s denial of Campbell’s application for disability insurance benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s disability determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (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 Com *311 missioner’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. Campbell v. Colvin, No. 3:12-cv-00623-JAG, 2013 WL 5506844 (E.D.Va. Oct. 2, 2013). 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.