ORDER

MAURICE M. PAUL, Senior District Judge.

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated May 20, 2014. (Doc. 20). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Petitioner has filed objections at Doc. 21, to which the Commissioner responded, Doc. 22. I have made a de novo review based on those objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Plaintiff sole argument is that the ALJ provided only "boilerplate recitation of stock phrases and paragraphs that are intended to give reviewing courts the impression that the Defendant Commissioner's ALJs are performing the analysis required by the CFR and the law of this circuit." Doc. 21, ¶ 2. While it is true that the ALJ in this case began the analysis section with the boilerplate criticized in Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222, 226 (11th Cir. 1990), the ALJ completed the sentence with "for the reasons explained below" and then set out and explained those reasons. Thus, the ALJ in this case did what the plaintiff claims he did not do: he gave reasons for rejecting the plaintiff's testimony about the intensity, persistence and limiting effect of her symptoms through a discussion of the medical evidence, Plaintiff's activities of daily living, and her inconsistent statements.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE AND ORDERED.