Sengupta

MEMORANDUM **

Mritunjoy Sengupta, a former professor with the University of Alaska whose application for re-employment was rejected, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the University on his claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . He also appeals from the district court’s post-judgment award of attorneys’ fees and entry of a pre-filing review order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review summary judgment de novo. Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748, 753 (9th Cir.2006). We review attorneys’ fee awards and pre-filing orders for an abuse of discretion. Galen v. County of L.A. 477 F.3d 652 , 658 (9th Cir.2007); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court properly determined that Sengupta’s challenge to his 1995 firing by the University, already re *753 solved by Alaska state courts, is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. See Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.2007) (“Under 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.”)…