
    Clifford L. SASSELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tricia CHRISTOFFERSON, Public Service Staff, U.S. Forest Service, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-17105.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 6, 2010.
    Clifford L. Sasselli, Clipper Mills, CA, pro se.
    Bobbie J. Montoya, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for D efend an t-App ellee.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Clifford L. Sasselli appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005); Coyle v. P.T. Garuda Indon., 363 F.3d 979, 984 n. 7 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sasselli’s FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Sasselli failed to file an administrative claim before filing this action in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a); Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1034-37 (9th Cir.2009), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 796, — L.Ed.2d-(2009).

The district court properly dismissed Sasselli’s Bivens claim for failure to state a claim because Sasselli filed his claim after the applicable two-year statute of limitations expired. See W. Ctr. for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (explaining that the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitation applies in Bivens actions); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 335.1.

Sasselli did not object to the magistrate judge’s order staying discovery and thus forfeited his right to challenge that order on appeal. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.1996) (concluding that a party who fails to timely object to a magistrate judge’s nondisposi-tive order forfeits the right to challenge that order on appeal).

Sasselli’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     