UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION LINDA KING, ) Plaintiff, v. CV622-032 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant. ORDER After a careful de novo review of the record in this case, the Court

concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) of August 25, 2028, (doc. no. 16), to which Plaintiff has objected, (doc. no. 17), and the Acting Commissioner has responded, (doc. no. 18). After thorough consideration of the grounds of error alleged in Plaintiff's briefing, ranging from the ALJ's failure to assign proper weight to medical opinions, to his failure to account for Plaintiff's inability to leave the house, to his improper consideration of her solitary personal activities, conservative treatment, medical improvement, and partially benign mental status exams, the Magistrate Judge recommended the ALJ's final decision be affirmed because it was based on substantial

evidence. (See generally doc. no. 16.) Plaintiff objected to the R&R, restating numerous arguments the Magistrate Judge already addressed

at length in the R&R, (see, e.g., doc. no. 18 at 2) and accordingly, only one

argument merits further analysis. Plaintiff disagrees with the R&R’s analysis of the effect of the

Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Harner v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner,

(11th Cir. 2022), on many of the cases cited in her briefs. (See doc. no. 17 at 6-7; see also doc. no. 16 at 14n.4). She

argues, without citation to any authority, that the Magistrate Judge’s acknowledgement that the relied-upon precedents have been abrogated is “inaccurate.” -(Doc. no. 17 at 6.) This argument is inexplicable, as the Eleventh Circuit very clearly stated that its prior precedents applying the treating-physician rule have been abrogated. Harner,

. Despite this explicit holding, Plaintiff argues the Eleventh Circuit's analysis in Meade v. Commissioner of Social Security,

, 948-49 (11th Cir. 2020), should still be considered by this Court in its analysis. (Doc. no. 17 at 7.) Acloser look at Meade shows that the cited analysis is a direct application of the now-defunct treating physician rule, which required the ALJ to “give a treating physician’s opinion

substantial or considerable weight unless there is good cause not to.” 807 F. App’x at 946 (Ginternal citation and quotations omitted); see also id. at

949 (applying this standard to the ALJ’s analysis of a treating physician). The analysis has, therefore, been abrogated. Harner,

. Plaintiff does not explain why that analysis should still carry weight, just that it should. (Doc. no. 17 at 7.) Her argument fails. As the R&R correctly explained, (doc. no. 16 at 1-2), this Court’s review of the Acting Commissioner's final decision is limited. “We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. [Cit.] If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm,

even if the proof preponderates against it.” Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,

(11th Cir. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). A de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R shows he appropriately applied this deferential standard to the Acting Commissioner’s final decision. Therefore, the Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED, the R&R (doc. no. 16) is ADOPTED as the Court's

opinion in this case, and the Acting Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this S/S aay of September, 2023. . / De 4S i / | ALLEL / J. RANDAT, HALL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA