Case ID: f-appx_704/html/0222-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Raymond Edward CHESTNUT, Petitioner
    No. 17-2859
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 28, 2017
    (Opinion filed: November 15, 2017)
    Raymond Edward Chestnut, Pro Se
    Kate L. Mershimer, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, 0. Michael Thiel, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Scranton, PA, for Defendant-Respondent
    Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

PER CURIAM

Raymond Chestnut filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District Court to enter judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition filed in Chestnut v. Ebbert, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:16-cv-00097. The District Court has since terminated the case, effectively granting Chestnut’s motion for voluntary dismissal. In light of the District Court’s action, the question Chestnut presented is no longer a live controversy, so we will dismiss his mandamus petition as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992). 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent,