has made plain that "a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). Where an inmate challenges prison policies or conditions, his transfer or release moots his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief from those policies or conditions, even if his claims for damages survive. See, e.g., Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286-87 (4th Cir.2007), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2056, 170 L.Ed.2d 798 (2008) (appeal from denial of a First Amendment challenge to ban on maximum security inmates' receipt of certain publications dismissed as moot following plaintiff’s release); Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The exception to the mootness doctrine for
holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot holding that the judicial immunity available to federal officers extends to section 1983 actions for declaratory and injunctive relief holding that the validity of injunctive relief sought by students was mooted by football seasons end holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief