ORDER

LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge.

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's December 29, 2015, Report and Recommendation, dkt. no. 15, to which Plaintiff filed Objections, dkt. no. 18, and Defendant filed a Response, dkt. no. 20. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections.

Plaintiff's Objections as a whole merely mimic her previously-raised arguments. Accordingly, the Court need not address the Objections at length. However, the Court makes a few points of clarification. Plaintiff did not state in her disability report at the Agency level or at the administrative hearing that she had an intellectual disability, nor did Plaintiff show she had the requisite IQ or deficits in adaptive functioning to meet Listing 12.05C. As Defendant notes, "an administrative law judge is under no obligation to investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not offered at the hearing as a basis for disability." Terrell v. Colvin, No. CIV.A. 13-00357-B, 2015 WL 328844, at *8 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2015) (quoting Street v. Barnhart, 133 F. App'x 621, 627 (11th Cir. 2005)). However, the Administrative Law Judge ("AU") discussed whether Plaintiff met any of the 12.00 Listings. The ALJ determined Plaintiff did not meet the general 12.00 Listings based on the record before him, implicitly finding Plaintiff did not meet any of the specific 12.00 Listings, including Listing 12.05C. Moreover, as laid out by the Magistrate Judge, the A-L's determination is supported by substantial evidence.

The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case.

SO ORDERED.