With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 870 F.2d 1044, 1045 (5th Cir.1989). Res judicata is appropriate if: 1) the parties to both actions are identical (or at least in privity); 2) the judgment in the first action is rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; 3) the first action concluded with a final judgment on the merits; and 4) the same claim or cause of action is involved in both suits. See United States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir.1994). The first and second elements of res judicata are not disputed. Ellis first argues that the dismissal of the Northern District suit as time-barred was not a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes. We have rejected this claim. See Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Miss., 701 F.2d 556, 561 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Thompson, 870 F.2d at 1045-46 (stating that

A: holding that collateral attacks on bankruptcy courts jurisdiction are barred by res judicata
B: holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata
C: holding in res judicata context that dismissals for want of jurisdiction are not decisions on the merits while those on limitations are
D: holding in res judicata context that  final judgment on the merits is synonymous with dismissal with prejudice
C.