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 28
U.S.C. § 1332 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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, 864 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1989). Moreover the
magistrate judge did not exceed his statutory authority. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(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, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (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