was meritless. To the extent the Smiths continue to seek IFP status, that issue is not before the Court for at least two reasons. First, litigants denied IFP status on appeal by a district court generally must seek relief in the court of appeals by filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(5), rather than appealing from the district court’s order. As we explained in Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800 (6th Cir.1999), “[o]nee the district court denies the pauper motion, the litigant can file a motion for pauper status with this court in accordance with [Rule 24(a)(5) ]. Any appeal from an order denying pauper status on appeal will not be entertained and shall be dismissed sua sponte.” Id. at 804; accord Fed. R.App. P. 24 (Advisory Committee Notes, 1967) (<HOLDING>). Because the Smiths did not file a motion with
holding timely notice of appeal under fed rapp p 4a is jurisdictional holding that when the administrative procedure is not empowered to achieve the end sought in the legal action the procedure is unavailable because it cannot accomplish the purpose of the legal action holding that judicial review of final agency action under the administrative procedure act  provides the proper procedure to challenge the sufficiency of an eis holding that when an agency fails to follow the proper procedure under the illinois administrative procedure act for the adoption of rules the rule is invalid recognizing that the simple and expeditious motion procedure set forth in fed rapp p 24a5 rather than an appeal from  the certification of lack of good faith is the proper procedure for calling in question the correctness of the action of the district court