
    In re Thomas A. PROVENZANO, Petitioner.
    No. 15-2900.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P.
    Aug. 27, 2015.
    Filed: Sept. 9, 2015.
    Thomas A. Provenzano, Graterford, PA, pro se.
    Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Provenzano is a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se. On July 1, 2014, Provenzano filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. By order entered March 13, 2015, the District Court entered an order dismissing it in part and denying it in part. On May 28, 2015, Provenzano filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rules 60(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 5, 2015, when more than two months had gone by without a ruling from the District Court, Provenzano filed the present petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the District Court to rule on his post-judgment motion. Shortly thereafter, on August 11, 2015, the District Court entered an order denying that motion.

Because Provenzano has now received the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition — namely, a ruling on his Rule 60 motion — we will dismiss his mandamus petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir.1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiffs personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”). 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to LO.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
     
      
      . Provenzano initially filed his petition in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but the matter was subsequently transferred to the Middle District.
     
      
      . To the extent that Provenzano asks this Court to provide him with copies of the District Court’s March 13, 2015 opinion and order, he must direct this request to the District Court.
     