NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Fede ral Circuit 2006-5082 GENERAL CHARLES ULYSSES SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES,
De fendant-Appellee.

_______________________ DECIDED: October 5, 2006

_______________________ Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge , ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge , and PROST, Circuit Judge

. ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge

. Charles Ulysses Smith (“Smith”) appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims’s (“Claims Court”) dismissal of his complaint. Smith v. United States , No. 06- 79C (Fed. Cl. Mar. 14, 2006). Because Smith’s claim is ba rred by both the doctrine of res judicata and the statute of limitations, we affirm

.Prior to this case, there have been at leas t seven judicial dispositions involv ing Smith’s claims against the government. 1 For this reason, we need not restate the basic facts involved.
Whether a claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata is a ques tion of law that
we review de novo. Faust v. U n ited States , 101 F.3d 675, 677 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The issue of whether the Claims Court properly determined that a claim was barred by the statute of limitations is al so reviewed without deference. Wells v. United States , 420 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

. While Smith’s brief is somewhat difficult to understand, it is ev ident that his claim below arose from the same operative f a ct s as his previous action against the government in the Claims Court and is based upon the s a me transactions and occurrences. Accordingly, the pr evious final judgment on Smith’s clai m extinguishes “all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against th e defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected trans actions, out of which the action” arose. Young Eng’rs, Inc. v. Unit ed States Int’l Trade Comm’n , 721 F.2d 1305, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (internal quotations omitt ed). Further, as the Claims C ourt recognized in its order denying Smith’s motion for reconsideratio n, even assuming Smith had raised n e w claims in his most recent complaint that had not been previous ly decided, any such

1 Smith file d his first complaint in t he United States District Cour t for the District of Maryland in 1981 (this case wa s dis m issed as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)); he filed his second s u it against the Army with that court in 1995 (this complaint was dismissed based on res j udicata grounds). In 2000, Smith filed a complaint in the Cla ims Court, Smith v. United States , No. 00-171C (Fed. Cl. Sept. 5, 2000) (“ Smith CFC I ”) (this claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter juri sdiction or failure to state a claim ) . The current appeal stems from his second complaint filed with the Claims Court, filed in 2006 (“ Smith CFC II ”). Smith CFC I forms the basis for the Cla ims Court’s res ju dicata determination in Smith CFC II

.
2006-5082 2claims would be time-barred, as suits agains t the government are s ubject to a six year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (1994). 2

2 The facts giving rise to Smith’s complaint occurred in 1970 wh e n he was discharged from the Army. Ev en if we were t o assume t hat the Ar my Dischar ge Rev i ew Board’s decision reclassi fying Smith’s discharge from a general d i sc harge under honorable conditions to an honorable dis c harge restarted the clock for statute of limitation purposes, this occurred in 1976, more than six y ears prior to Smith’s filing of his origin al complaint wit h the Claims Court.

2006-5082 3