Ronald Satish Emrit v. Crescent Hardy ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1471
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CONGRESSMAN CRESCENT HARDY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-00075-PWG)
Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 30, 2017
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Emrit’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
2