argue that the regulatory provision at issue is not the equivalent of a statute of limitations and therefore, the requisite adjudication on the merits never took place. The federal courts are in virtual accord that a suit’s dismissal “based on the running of the statute of limitations will, absent a clear directive to the contrary, be deemed a dismissal on the merits that will bar the filing of a subsequent suit on the ground of res judicata.” Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 128 Md.App. 39, 736 A.2d 1104, 1116 (1999) (citing authority from nine federal circuit courts of appeal for position that dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is judgment on merits); but see Reinke v. Boden, 45 F.3d 166 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817, 116. S.Ct. 74, 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The problem presented by this case is that
holding that to determine collateral estoppel effect of a federal civil rights action fjederal law governs the preclusive effect of a claim arising under federal law holding that federal rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel determine preclusive effect of prior federal ftca judgments even though liability is based on state law holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court holding that dismissal of case on statute of limitations grounds is final judgment and barring appeal has res judicata effect