Moosavi v. Zook

UNPUBLISHED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 _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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