Before the court is a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and a brief in support filed by “Seneca Lam-brone Lee in the name of Christ Christianity Party.” Only natural persons may qualify to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202-03, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993). Further, a litigant seeking to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is economically eligible and that his appeal is not frivolous. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).

The district court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution for failure to pay the filing fee. Lee’s sole argument on appeal is that he paid the filing fee in the district court in a timely manner because Saturdays and Sundays are not counted in the 30 days stipulated by the magistrate judge’s order. This assertion is without merit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Accordingly, the motion for IFP is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Jackson, 811 F.2d at 261; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.