UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6741
In Re: MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(5:06-cv-00024)
Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 21, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Allen Kokoski, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Allen Kokoski petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order for his immediate release from federal prison. We
conclude Kokoski is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Kokoski’s request, if considered, calls upon this court
to review the merits of the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
deny his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Mandamus may not be used
as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d
958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).*
The relief sought by Kokoski is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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
*
In any event, a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
is not an appealable final order. Kokoski may seek to appeal a
district court’s order that adopts the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.
- 2 -