                  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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
