of certain crimes and to recommend a sentence reduction. His petition named as defendants the United States government, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the Atlanta Division of the United States Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Georgia, and two individual BOP officers, “Essinburn” and “Riverra.” The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation concluding that Davis’ § 1361 mandamus petition should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Over Davis’ objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and dismissed the petition. This appeal followed. II. We review a district court’s refusal to issue a writ of mandamus for abuse of discretion. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 111 n. 8, 85 S.Ct. 234, 239 n. 8, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964) (<HOLDING>). Because Davis is proceeding pro se, we
holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is itself generally a matter of discretion holding that an execution may not run against the property of a political subdivision of the state and thus the only procedure available to a judgment creditor is the issuance of a writ of mandamus holding that common pleas erred in setting aside the writ of execution on the basis that the union erroneously filed a writ of execution instead of filing a writ of mandamus recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus