NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FULL -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 13a0253n.06 No. 12-3688 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T VENKA NNA KA NNA, MD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. ERI C SHI

NSEKI , Secre tary

of the United States Depa

rtment of Ve tera

n Affa irs; DOUGLAS MOORMAN, Administrator, Veter ans Administration Medical Cente r; SAEREE J ANE-WI T, MD, Chief of Staff , Veter ans Administration Medical Cente r, Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUT HERN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

BEF ORE: KEI TH, MARTI N, and COL E, Circuit J udg es.

PE R CURI

A M

. V e nkanna Kanna appea ls a district court judgme nt dismiss ing his c o mp lain t. In 2008, Kanna filed a complaint ag ainst the United States Depa rtment of Veter ans Affa irs alleg ing that the Depa

rtment terminated his employ ment as a phy sician on the basis of his rac e and national orig in. Kanna soug ht monetary , decla ratory , and injunctive relief

. The case proce eded to trial and a jury found in favor

of the De partment. Ka

nna did not appea l the jury ’s ver dict. In 2011, Kanna filed another complaint against the Depa rtment, alleg ing that, when terminating his employ

ment, the Depa

rtment failed to g ive him proper notice of the char g es ag ainst him and a rea sonable time to respond. Kanna also asser ted that the Depa

rtment failed to provide him wi t h a t i m ely and appropr iate written decision, denied him acc ess to evidenc e pertinent to hisNo. 12-3688

Kanna v. Shinseki defe nse, and failed to proper ly co n s i d er the totality of the evidenc e. The district court dismiss ed Kanna ’s complaint, findingthat Kanna ’s claims we re ba rre d by the doctrine of re s judicata. On ap p ea l , Ka n na argues that the claims in his 2011 complaint wer e not barr ed by the doctrine of res judicata beca use they : 1) wer e re lated to the administrative he aring conce rning the termination of his employ ment; and 2) wer e distinct from his previous discrimin at i on claims that

wer e base d on the period prec edingthe administrative hea ring

. The district court’s decision is revie wed de novo. Bragg v. Flint Bd. of Educ. , 570 F.3d 775, 776 (6th Cir. 2009). The doc trine of r es judicata require s: (1) a fin al d ecision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a subsequent action b etween the same parties or their privies; (3) an issue in the subsequent action which was litigated or which should h av e been litigated in the prior ac tion; and (4) an ide ntity of the c auses of

action. Id

. The district court proper ly dismiss ed Kanna ’s 2011 complaint on the basis that it was barr ed b y t h e doctrine of res judicata. The jury verdic t and subsequent entry of judgme nt that resolved Kanna ’s discrimination claims constituted a final decision on the merits. The action involved both Kanna and the Depa

rtment, the s ame parties t hat are i nvolved in Kanna ’s cur rent a ction. Fur

ther, beca use Kanna was awa

re of his due proce ss claims when he filed his 2008 complaint, and all of his claims arose from the se ries of e vents that culminated in the termination of his employ ment, there is a n identity of claims betwee n the two actions. See W inget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 537 F.3d 565, 580–81 (6th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). Finally , Kanna could have, and should have, litigated his due proce ss claims in his previous action. See Bragg , 570 F.3d at 777; Mitchell v. Chapman , 343 F.3d 811, 824 (6th Cir. 2003). -2-No. 12-3688

Kanna v. Shinseki Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s judg ment.

-3-