United States Court of Appeals

                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 97-2430
                                    ___________

Mel M. Marin,                        *
                                     *
             Appellant,              *
                                     * Appeal from the United States
      v.                             * District Court for the Eastern
                                     * District of Missouri.
LDDS of Missouri, Inc., doing        *
business as LDDS of Alabama, Inc.;   *
WorldCom, Inc.,                      *
                                     * [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellees.              *
                                ___________

                          Submitted: January 5, 1998
                              Filed: January 12, 1998
                                  ___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
                          ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Mel M. Marin appeals from the district court&s1dismissal of his diversity action.
In August 1996, Marin filed suit against LDDS of Missouri, Inc. d/b/a LDDS of
Alabama, Inc., and WorldCom, Inc. (collectively WorldCom), claiming breach of
contract, fraud, and invasion of privacy. The district court, on WorldCom&s Federal



      1
        The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion, dismissed Marin&s complaint without
prejudice for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

        Upon de novo review, see Keene Corp. v. Cass, 

, 296 (8th Cir.
1990), we agree with the district court that Marin failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction, see Bilal v. Kaplan, 

, 15 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (federal
question jurisdiction must appear clearly and distinctly; “mere suggestion of a federal
question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts”); Sanders v.
Clemco Indus., 

, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (complaint must state with specificity
corporate party&s state of incorporation and principal place of business; where plaintiff
fails to state place of incorporation or principal place of business of corporate party,
pleadings are inadequate to establish diversity). We have also considered and reject
Marin&s remaining arguments on appeal as without merit.

      Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                          -2-