UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ___________________

No. 02-30993 Summary Calendar ___________________

HUMBERTO HINOJOSA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD P. IEYOUB, in his individual capacity,

Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (02-CV-1321) _________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Humberto Hinojosa appeals, pro se, the dismissal of his

action as time-barred, contending: the magistrate

judge exceeded his authority when, without Hinojosa’s consent, he

reviewed Hinojosa’s complaint and issued a report recommending that

the complaint be dismissed as time-barred; and the district court

erred in adopting that report and dismissing the action as time-

barred.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. The parties' consent is not required for a district judge to

refer a case to a magistrate judge where, as here, “the ultimate

decision-making authority [is] retained by the district court”.

Jackson v. Cain,

(5th Cir. 1989). Moreover the

magistrate judge did not exceed his statutory authority. See

(b)(1)(B).

Hinojosa’s contention that the district court erred in

adopting the magistrate judge’s report is without merit. See

Longmire v. Guste,

(5th Cir. 1991). The

magistrate judge correctly concluded that Hinojosa’s complaint,

based on events that occurred in 1989, was barred by the five-year

prescriptive period for contractual fraud claims, as set forth in

LA. CIV. CODE art. 2032.

AFFIRMED

2