ORDER

ANNE C. CONWAY, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carla Michelle White's ("Plaintiff") Objection (Doc. No. 27) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued on June 6, 2014 (Doc. No. 26). After an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, the Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the R&R.

In this case, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denied Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income and disability insurance benefits, finding Plaintiff to be not disabled. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the ALJ's decision be affirmed. Plaintiff's sole objection to the R&R is that the ALJ failed to discuss certain "pertinent elements" of the opinion evidence with respect to Plaintiff's mental health; namely, the opinion of Dr. Oatley, a consultative examiner, that Plaintiff's concentration is "moderately limited." (Doc. No. 27 pp. 2-3.) This objection is unavailing, because the ALJ discussed the "pertinent elements" of Dr. Oatley's evaluation in reaching his conclusion that "[t]he claimant's medically determinable mental impairments . . . do not cause more than minimal limitation in the claimant's ability to perform basic mental work activities and are therefore nonsevere." (See R. (Doc. No. 16-2) at 17-18.) The ALJ specifically considered Dr. Oatley's opinion, describing his examination of Plaintiff in some detail, and also considered the opinions of two non-examining state agency psychologists. (Id.) However, the ALJ assigned "little weight" to these opinions, because "the medical evidence does not show any treatment for mental health complaints and certainly insufficient to establish that the claimant has more than minimal mental limitations as a result of her alleged mental issues." (R. 24.)

Review of the Record clearly indicates that the ALJ considered the "pertinent elements" of Dr. Oatley's evaluation and opinion. Plaintiff cites Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, but that case is easily distinguishable because the ALJ in that case failed to consider the treating physician's treatment notes or even mention his medical opinion. 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). Here, the ALJ thoroughly summarized the evaluation notes of a non-treating consultant, but rejected the opinion because the Plaintiff had never before received mental health treatment. Thus, the ALJ stated "with particularity the weight given to [Dr. Oatley's] medical opinions and the reasons therefor," id., and the ALJ's conclusions are rational and supported by substantial evidence.

Based on the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 26), filed June 6, 2014, is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and is made a part of this Order.

2. Plaintiff Carla Michelle White's Objection to the R&R (Doc. No. 27), filed June 19, 2014, is OVERRULED.

3. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner, and to

DONE and ORDERED.