Matthew Lester appeals the ■ district court’s 1 grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the denial of Lester’s pending motions, and the dismissal of the action with prejudice. After de novo review of the record, Schaefer v. Putnam, 827 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review), including a thorough review of the two previous Oklahoma federal district court actions brought by Lester and referenced in the district court’s analysis in this matter, 2 Lester’s arguments on appeal, as well as the district court’s careful analysis, we find no basis for reversal. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Compaq Comput. Corp., 539 F.3d 809, 821 (8th Cir. 2008) (“The law of the forum that rendered the first judgment controls the res judicata analysis.”); Hillary v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 123 F.3d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1997) (“This Court has consistently looked to state law to determine the effect of the judgment of another federal court in a case where state law supplied the rule of decision. This rule applies when the original judgment is that of another federal court sitting in diversity.” (quoting Follette v. Wal-Mart Stores, *592 Inc., 41 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1994))). Res judicata “is a bedrock principle of our legal system,” and “is central to the purpose for which civil courts have been established.” Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2292, 2331, 195 L.Ed.2d 665 (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting) (second passage quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979)). By precluding parties from contesting matters that have already been fully and fairly litigated, the doctrine of res judicata “protects their adversaries from the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.” Id. (quoting Montana, 440 U.S. at 153-54, 99 S.Ct. 970).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the report and recommendation adopted by the district court, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Lester’s claims with prejudice, and its denial of all pending motions. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.