OPINION

In October 2011, Jeffrey D. Hill filed a complaint in the District Court against Century 21 Appraisals and the Lycoming County Assessment Office. In accordance with sanctions that the District Court imposed on Hill, 1 a Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint and issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. Hill filed objections to the report and recommendation, and then filed two letters regarding the status of the case in November and December 2011. On January 24, 2012, Hill filed a pro se mandamus petition with this Court, seeking to compel the District Court to review the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 2

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). “A petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Although we may issue a writ of mandamus when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” id., the manner in which the district court controls its docket is diseretion-ary, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982).

The District Court has yet to accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding Hill’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). This, however, does not constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction. We are confident that the District Court will review and act on the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation regarding Hill’s complaint. Accordingly, we will deny Hill’s mandamus petition without prejudice to his right to seek mandamus relief should the District Court fail to timely accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation.