Case Name: Ronald Satish EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Congressman Crescent HARDY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-30
Citations: 692 F. App'x 705
Docket Number: No. 17-1471
Parties: Ronald Satish EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Congressman Crescent HARDY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 705–706

Head Matter:
Ronald Satish EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Congressman Crescent HARDY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-1471
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 2017
Decided: June 30, 2017
Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint for improper venue. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Buchanan v. Manley, 145 F.3d 386, 388-89 (D.C. Cir. 1998). It is apparent from Em-rit's complaint that no conceivable basis exists for venue in- the District of Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) (2012) (describing venue and residency requirements); O'Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972) (describing "residency" of public official). Moreover, we are satisfied that the interests of justice did not require transferring, rather than dismissing, the action. See Simpkins v. D.C. Gov't, 108 F.3d 366, 370 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (recognizing that district court may dismiss action, despite improper venue, where complaint patently failed to state viable claim).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED