Jennie Rhodes appeals from the order of the District Court 1 affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s decision — issued after a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) and consistent with the ALJ’s decision — denying Rhodes’s May 2005 application for supplemental security income. Following careful de novo review, see Halpin v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 342, 345-46 (8th Cir. 1993) (explaining that court of appeals reviews mixed questions of law and fact de novo, even where claimant failed to object to the magistrate judge’s factual findings), we conclude that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a *654 whole, see Tilley v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that affirmance is warranted where the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole).

Accordingly, we affirm.