With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment
B: holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits
C: holding that dismissal of case on statute of limitations grounds is final judgment and barring appeal has res judicata effect
D: holding in res judicata context that  final judgment on the merits is synonymous with dismissal with prejudice
C.