UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MOHAMMED MOOSAVI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                               No. 99-6247
JAMES ZOOK, Director of Zoning
Administration, Zoning Enforcement
Branch,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(CA-98-1780-A)

Submitted: April 30, 1999

Decided: May 25, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Mohammed Moosavi, Appellant Pro Se. James Patrick Taves,
Melissa Austin Long, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Mohammed Moosavi appeals the order of the district court dis-
missing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Moosavi,
a resident of Fairfax County, Virginia, seeks to compel James Zook,
the Director of Zoning Enforcement for Fairfax County, to address
alleged violations of the county zoning ordinance.

Federal trial courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction dependent
upon statutory grants of jurisdiction from the Congress. See In re
Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). Accord-
ingly, a plaintiff must assert jurisdiction either by raising a question
based on the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994), or by claiming jurisdiction based on diver-
sity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (West 1993 & Supp.
1998). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (stating that pleadings shall
contain a statement of the grounds of jurisdiction).

Moosavi alleged no basis for jurisdiction, and we can find none
that supports his claims. Moosavi does not claim that the parties have
diversity of citizenship, and the information in the record tends to
refute this possibility. Furthermore, Moosavi raises no claims under
federal law or the Constitution.*

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Because Moosavi failed to assert the subject matter jurisdiction of the
district court, his case is distinguishable from Pomponio v. Fauquier
County Bd. of Supervisors, 21 F.3d 1319 (4th Cir. 1994) (en banc),
overruled in part by Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706
(1996).

                     2
