Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4409 (2d ed. 2002)); Baker Group v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., 228 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir.2000) (similar); Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 126 F.3d 365, 369-70 (2d Cir.1997) (“For the purposes of res judicata, ‘the scope of litigation is framed by the complaint at the time it is filed’ ”) (quoting L.A Branch NAACP v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 750 F.2d 731, 739 (9th Cir.1984)); Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 915 (7th Cir.1993) (stating that “plaintiffs need not amend filings to include issues that arise after the original suit is lodged”); Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.2d 1355, 1360 (11th Cir.1992) (similar to Rawe)-, but see Dubuc v. Green Oak Twp., 312 F.3d 736, 750 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Havercombe v. Dep’t of Educ., 250 F.3d 1, 4-9
holding because an initial order contemplated the subsequent entry of a judgment the initial order was not considered a final adjudication holding that a sua sponte dismissal by the court for failure of the plaintiff to comply with an order of the court should operate as an adjudication on the merits because the defendant has been put to the trouble of preparing his defense because there was no initial bar to the courts reaching the merits holding that a plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to add a claim holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits holding that under michigan law when alleged additional manifestation of retaliatory animus occurs before adjudication on the merits of the initial suit  the victim is obliged to amend his or her initial complaint to add these new allegations