Bobby Pipkin appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review of the record, see Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012), and careful consideration of Pipkin’s arguments, 2 we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, because the administrative law judge (ALJ) gave several valid reasons for his credibility determination, it is entitled to deference. See Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012). Further, the ALJ properly discounted the opinions of a consulting physician and psychologist as to Pipkin’s residual functional capacity (RFC), see Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 888 (8th Cir. 2006) (opinion of consulting physician who examines claimant once does not generally constitute substantial evidence); and the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by some medical evidence, as required, as it is consistent with the medical findings and diagnostic test results in the treatment records, see Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ is responsible for determining RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of his limitations). Finally, because Pipkin bases his challenge to the ALJ’s hypothetical on his other arguments, this challenge necessarily fails as well. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.