precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for failure to state a claim and 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 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Simpkins v. D.C. Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366, 370
holding that to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint must contain more than an unadorned thedefendantunlawfullyharmedme accusation it must set forth sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face quoting twombly 550 us at 570127 sct 1955 holding that a complaint must contain only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face recognizing that to survive dismissal a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face internal quotation marks omitted holding that a plaintiffs complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face   that is factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged holding that a complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face