Parker’s arguments to the contrary, a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is a disposition on the merits. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (“Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, any [involuntary] dismissal ...—except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19— operates as an adjudication on the merits.”); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995) (“The rules of finality, both statutory and judge made, treat a dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds the same way they treat a dismissal for failure to state a claim, for failure to prove substantive liability, or for failure to prosecute: as a judgment on the merits.”); Murphy v. Klein Tools, Inc., 935 F.2d 1127, 1128-29 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). A district court does not have jurisdiction
holding that dismissal for failure to appear at a deposition is on the merits holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits holding that dismissal of case on statute of limitations grounds is final judgment and barring appeal has res judicata effect holding that a dismissal based on a jurisdictional statute of limitations does not constitute a judgmerit on the merits because a judgment on the merits can only be rendered after a court has jurisdiction