UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:21-cv-00173 Sharon Nedalynn Eason, Plaintiff, V. Commissioner, SSA, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Sharon Nedalynn Eason filed this action pursuant to

(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny social security benefits. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to

(b). Doc. 3. On May 21, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a report recom- mending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and the case be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 18. Plaintiff submitted objections on June 2, 2022. Doc. 19. The court reviews objected-to portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72;

(b)(1). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate and ex- plain her analysis of Dr. Scribner’s opinion. Plaintiff asserts that the AL] did not sufficiently weigh Dr. Scribner’s opinion and discuss its supportability and consistency. Unlike the recent case relied upon by plaintiff in her objections, the ALJ here pointed to specific evidence and findings to support her conclusion that part of Dr. Scribner’s opinion was persuasive and part of it was not. Doc. 11-2 at 21; see Davidson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:21-cv-000324,

, at *9 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2022). The record reveals that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Scribner’s opinion pursuant to the revised rules for the considera- tion and articulation of medical opinions for claims filed after March 27, 2017.

.1520c. The ALJ considered the record as a

whole, properly considered the consistency and supportability of Dr. Scribner’s opinion, and fully explained her reasoning for finding the opinion partially persuasive and partially unpersuasive. The AL]J’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and be- ing satisfied that it contains no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s objections and accepts the report’s findings and recommendation (Doc. 18). The court affirms the Commissioner’s final administra- tive decision. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

So ordered by the court on June 16, 2022. feck BARKER United States District Judge

-2-