Case Name: In re ESTATE OF Sharon VAN PUTTEN; Allen Van Putten, Executor of the Estate of Sharon Van Putten; Debra Van Putten, Alternate Executor of the Estate of Sharon Van Putten, Petitioners
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-31
Citations: 553 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 13-2119
Parties: In re ESTATE OF Sharon VAN PUTTEN; Allen Van Putten, Executor of the Estate of Sharon Van Putten; Debra Van Putten, Alternate Executor of the Estate of Sharon Van Putten, Petitioners.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 328–328

Head Matter:
In re ESTATE OF Sharon VAN PUTTEN; Allen Van Putten, Executor of the Estate of Sharon Van Putten; Debra Van Putten, Alternate Executor of the Estate of Sharon Van Putten, Petitioners.
No. 13-2119.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 31, 2014.
Allen Van Putten, Debra Van Putten, Petitioners Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Allen Van Putten and Debra Van Put-ten, the executor and alternate executor of the estate of Sharon Van Putten, respectively, petition this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to accept the estate's complaint, grant the estate leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), and appoint the estate counsel. The executors have also applied to proceed IFP in this court, representing that the estate is without funds to pay the filing fee. We deny the estate's request to proceed IFP, as "only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under [28 U.S.C.] § 1915 [ (2012) ]," Rowland v. Calif. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 196, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993), and accordingly dismiss the estate's petition for a writ of mandamus.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED.