[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11103 ____________________

MARCUS RAPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:20-cv-00597-PRL ____________________

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 2 of 34

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11103

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: Marcus Raper appeals the Magistrate Judge’s order affirm- ing the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) 2020 denial of his claim for disability insurance benefits. 1 First, Raper argues that the Supreme Court’s holding in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commis- sion, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055 (2018), requires that his case be remanded to a different administrative law judge (ALJ). He contends that alt- hough the ALJ had been constitutionally appointed by the time he reheard his case in 2020, the ALJ was not constitutionally appointed under the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, when he first decided his case in 2017. 2 Second, Raper argues that the ALJ erred by not clearly articulating good cause for discounting his treating physician’s opinion because the ALJ’s rationale that the opinion was inconsistent with the record was conclusory. Third, Raper argues that the ALJ erred by partially discrediting his subjec- tive complaints of pain because the ALJ did not reference what ev- idence conflicted with his testimony and only discussed objective medical evidence.

1 The parties consented to have the Magistrate Judge issue final judgment.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (“Upon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case . . . .”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a) (“When authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), a magistrate judge may, if all parties consent, conduct a civil action or proceeding . . . .”). 2 As explained below, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision in 2017 and

found that Raper became disabled on August 8, 2017, but was not disabled before that date. USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 3 of 34

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 3

After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. Under these facts, there was no commensurate Ap- pointments Clause violation in the ALJ’s 2020 decision. The ALJ also articulated good cause for discounting the treating physician’s opinion because—when the ALJ’s decision is read as a whole—it is clear why the ALJ found the opinion inconsistent with the record. And the ALJ did not err in partially discrediting Raper’s subjective complaints because he applied the correct legal standard and did not rely solely on objective medical evidence. I. Background In March 2015, Raper applied for Social Security di