SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Melvin Washington, proceeding pro se, appeals the January 3, 2011 Order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Un-derhill, J.) denying his motion to reopen this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), as well as the district court’s February 14, 2011 Order denying Washington’s motion to reconsider its January 3, 2011 Order. Washington also moves in this Court for leave to file exhibits to his reply brief. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review both the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to reopen and the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 642 F.3d 121, 125 (2d Cir. 2011); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir. 1998).

Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981). State court judgments are to be given the same preclusive effect in federal court as they would be given in the courts of that state. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Washington’s claims were barred by res judicata. There is no dispute that the claims at issue in this action arise from the same transaction as those that were fully and fairly litigated in Connecticut State Court. See Washington v. Blackmore, 119 Conn.App. 218, 986 A.2d 356, 361 (2010) (affirming dismissal on summary judgment of similar action brought by Washington on the ground that the defendant police officers had probable cause to arrest him). Moreover, Washington’s argument that res judicata does not apply to bar review of at least one of his claims because the claim was “overlooked” by the state courts is without merit, as a claim is barred by res judicata so long as it could have been litigated in a prior action. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980).

We have considered Washington’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the orders of the district court. In addition, Washington’s motion for leave to file exhibits to his reply brief is DENIED.