Sturm

MEMORANDUM *

Navy chaplain Patrick M. Sturm appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims that Navy policies unconstitutionally discriminate against himself and other nonliturgica! Protestants. The district court found that the majority of these claims were moot, and it granted summary judgment for the Navy on the other claims. We affirm.

We review de novo questions of mootness, standing, and the propriety of summary judgment. Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1092 , 1097-98 (9th Cir.2000); Balint v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Sturm’s personal claims relating to his promotions are moot. 1 A case is moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1011 (9th Cir.2001). “ ‘Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.’ ” Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 320-21 , 111 S.Ct. 2331 , 115 L.Ed.2d 288 (1991) (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 , 94 S.Ct. 669 ,…