
    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.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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  