
    Earl W. CAREY, Appellant, v. The ST. LOUIS JOURNALISM REVIEW, et al., Respondents.
    No. 63661.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Aug. 17, 1993.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 16, 1993.
    Earl W. Carey, Pro Se.
    Lewis C. Green, Bruce A Morrison, Kathleen G. Henry, St. Louis, for respondents.
    Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his libel petition for failure to state a claim. We find no error of law appears and affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Appellant’s primary argument is his petition does state a claim for both libel per se and libel per quod. However, after reviewing the petition, we find it did not state a claim for libel per se. The petition did not include allegedly libelous statements which directly injured his profession by “imputing] a want of knowledge, skill, capacity, or fitness to perform or discharge his duties.” Morton v. Hearst Corp., 779 S.W.2d 268, 271[3] (Mo.App.1989); See also, Capobianco v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 812 S.W.2d 852, 856[4, 5] (Mo.App.1991); Greening v. Klamen, 652 S.W.2d 730, 735[13-16] (Mo.App.1983).

In addition, Appellant’s petition fails to state a cause of action for libel per quod. It does not allege special damages with the particularity required for such an action. See, Swafford v. Miller, 711 S.W.2d 211, 216-17[11] (Mo.App.1986).

We find an extended discussion of Appellant’s points would have no precedential value and affirm by written order.  