22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T443,MEMORANDUM Shaun Rosiere appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for improper venue his action alleging viola tions of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1057-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. Dismissal of Rosiere’s action was proper because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Rosiere’s FOIA complaint. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B) (the district court “in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction” to provide relief); Carter v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 307 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting district court’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T470,

MEMORANDUM

Shaun Rosiere appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for improper venue his action alleging viola tions of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1057-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Rosiere’s action was proper because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Rosiere’s FOIA complaint. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B) (the district court “in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction” to provide relief); Carter v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 307 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting district court’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B)).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.