22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T531,MEMORANDUM Maurice Allen Gilbert appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing as moot Gilbert’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order confirming that the automatic stay does not apply to real property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158 (d), 1291. We review de novo a district court’s determination that a bankruptcy appeal is moot. Nat'l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178 , 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Gilbert’s appeal as moot because, after foreclosure proceedings, the property was conveyed to a third party which prevented the district court from granting effective relief. See id. at 1180-81 (affirming dismissal on the basis of mootness where the sale of the property to a non-party prevented the court from granting effective relief). Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the appeal as moot, we do not consider Gilbert’s arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal. Appellee’s request for judicial notice, filed July 30, 2015, is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T568,

MEMORANDUM

Maurice Allen Gilbert appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing as moot Gilbert’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order confirming that the automatic stay does not apply to real property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158 (d), 1291. We review de novo a district court’s determination that a bankruptcy appeal is moot. Nat'l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178 , 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gilbert’s appeal as moot because, after foreclosure proceedings, the property was conveyed to a third party which prevented the district court from granting effective relief. See id. at 1180-81 (affirming dismissal on the basis of mootness where the sale of the property to a non-party prevented the court from granting effective relief).

Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the appeal as moot, we do not consider Gilbert’s arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal.

Appellee’s request for judicial notice, filed July 30, 2015, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.