ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Mr. Bloom, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint alleging error in the recording of his state sentence. The district court determined that these defendants were named in a prior complaint containing the same claims by Mr. Bloom. The prior complaint was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The district court held that this action was barred by claim preclusion. Claim preclusion applies where there is (1) a final merits judgment in the prior action, (2) identity of parties or privies in both actions, and (3) identity of causes of action in both suits. See Wilkes v. Wyo. Dep’t of Employment Div. of Labor Stds., 314 F.3d 501, 504 (10th Cir. 2002). Applying the transactional approach to what constitutes a cause of action, it is clear that Mr. Bloom’s sentencing claim is identical, and other elements of claim preclusion are satisfied in this case. See id. We note that the district court’s dismissal of the prior complaint was recently affirmed. See Bloom v. Andrews, No. 02-3366, 2003 WL 21480696, at *2 (10th Cir. June 27, 2003).

AFFIRMED.