ORDER

LISA GODBEY WOOD, District Judge.

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dkt. no. 22, to which Plaintiff filed Objections, dkt. no. 23. Defendant filed a Response, dkt. no. 24. In her Objections, Plaintiff requests that the Court review the medical evidence summary she submitted as part of her brief and contends the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Dkt. No. 23, p. 1.

Plaintiff's Objections offer no more than a reiteration of the contentions she originally presented to the Court, which the Magistrate Judge correctly rejected. Plaintiff's Objections, as well as her initial pleadings, serve to underscore her dissatisfaction with the ALJ's determination that she is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. In addition, it appears Plaintiff wishes for this Court to re-weigh the evidence presented to the ALJ, which this Court cannot do. A reviewing court does not "decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence or substitute" its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). Even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's factual findings, the court must affirm a decision supported by substantial evidence. Id. As the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determinations that Plaintiff did not meet Listing 1.04A and that Plaintiff's hip and spinal impairments did not cause significant functional restrictions that prevent Plaintiff from working on a regular, sustained basis. Dkt. No. 22.

Thus, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal

SO ORDERED.