PER CURIAM.
Raymond Outler filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to appoint him counsel and hold an evidentiary hearing in regards to his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). A magistrate judge filed findings and a recommendation on November 7, 2000, but the district court has taken no action since that time. The body of Outler’s mandamus petition leads us to construe it as also requesting that we compel the district court to act on the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)). We decline to exercise our supervisory power to take the extraordinary action of issuing a writ of mandamus in this case. Therefore, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to Outler’s right to file another mandamus petition if the district court does not act within a reasonable time. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.