ORDER

MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny the Plaintiff's application for benefits because it is based on the application of proper legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence. The Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. 17). The Plaintiff objects "to every statement in it"; argues the Magistrate Judge's "claims" are "untrue" and "misleading"; claims the Magistrate Judge cannot explain how he has evaded Eleventh Circuit authority; accuses the Magistrate Judge of "grossly misconstruing legal authority," of "just claim[ing]" the ALJ satisfied his legal responsibilities, of suggesting the ALJ's decision was "blameless because it is lengthy," of asserting that the Eleventh Circuit has sanctioned "cherry-picking the evidence," of "artfully assert[ing]" a finding the Plaintiff disagrees with, and of not "feel[ing] the need to evaluate" a fact allegedly supporting the Plaintiff's position. (Doc. 17 at 1-4). The hyperbole and unprofessionalism of the objection render it profoundly unpersuasive. Nevertheless, the Court carefully reviewed the record to determine if there was anything that would warrant the Plaintiff's over-the-top rhetoric. There was not.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has thoroughly considered the Plaintiff's objections and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects. As the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, the "ALJ's conclusion as a whole was supported by substantial evidence in the record." Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.