The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ludwig, J.
William D. Turner, an inmate at SCI-Mahoney currently serving a life sentence for first degree murder, requests that this court issue a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to review de novo the merits of a habeas petition originally filed on August 6, 1999 and denied on July 25, 2000. Petition for Writ of Mandamus, docket no. 1; Definite Statement of the In Re's Claims, docket no. 3.*fn1 Petitioner argues that he timely filed objections to the May 30, 2000 Report and Recommendation and they were not considered. Id. The petition will be denied.
"District courts shall have original jurisdiction in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the Plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361. "Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary circumstances. . . . 'Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other adequate means exists to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party's right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.'" Cambrel v. Fulwood, 2011 WL 4738153, at *1 (M.D. Pa., filed Oct. 6, 2011) (citations omitted).
The record - the docket entries and the Report and Recommendation - reflects that on August 6, 1999, petitioner filed a habeas petition arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel at his 1981 murder trial.*fn2 The petition was assigned to now Chief Magistrate Judge Wells. On May 2000, she issued a Report and Recommendation finding petitioner's claim time-barred. Petitioner was granted an extension of time in which to file objections. On June 20, 2000, petitioner filed his objections and on June 27, 2000, a response to the objections was filed. On July 25, 2000, then Chief Judge James T. Giles (now retired) adopted the Report and Recommendation, and the petition was denied and dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial and dismissal of the petition. Turner v. Dragovich, C.A. No. 00-2348. The Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari. See Turner v. Dragovich, 163 Fed.Appx. 97, 98 (3d Cir., filed Jan. 5, 2006).*fn3
There is no evidence on this record that Judge Giles did not perform a de novo review of petitioner's claims following the filing of the objections and response thereto, thus petitioner cannot demonstrate that he has been denied the relief he now requests. The history of the petition shows that the issues raised here have been exhaustively reviewed by both the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In these circumstances, issuance of a writ is not appropriate and the petition must be denied.