must be such that it could have been resolved, had it been presented, in the prior action. Initially then, we must determine whether there was a final adjudication on the merits in the federal administrative proceeding. To support their position, Defendants rely on a decision reached by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Shoup v. Bell & Howell Co., 872 F.2d 1178 (4th Cir.1989), which held that “dismissal ... on statute of limitations grounds is a final judgment on the merits.” Id. at 1179 (applying Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); but see Shoup, 872 F.2d at 1182-86 (contending that dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is not adjudication on merits) (Murnaghan, J., dissenting); see also Syl. Pt. 1, Gillespie v. Johnson, 157 W.Va. 904, 209 S.E.2d 143 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Defendants maintain that the two-year
holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding in res judicata context that  final judgment on the merits is synonymous with dismissal with prejudice  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 on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata