¶1 Plaintiff-Appellant Steve Winter brought suit in North Carolina state court against more than twenty defendants, including individuals and internet service providers (“ISPs”), alleging various injuries based on defendants’ internet activities.
¶2 The defendants removed the case to the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, based on the presence of a federal question. The district court denied Winter’s motion to remand the entire case to state court, dismissed certain defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and held that certain other defendants were immune from suit under 47 U.S.C. § 230. 2
¶3 As a result of the district court’s procedural rulings, no questions of federal law remained in the case. The district court therefore remanded the remaining issues to state court.
¶4 Winter timely appeals the district court’s decisions declining to remand the entire case to state court, dismissing certain defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and holding that certain other defendants were immune from suit pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230.
¶5 After reviewing the briefs and record in this case, we find no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinions of the district court. See Winter v. Bassett, No. I:02cv00382 (M.D.N.C. August 19, 2003); Winter v. Bassett, No. I:02cv00382 (M.D.N.C. August 22, 2003).
¶6 AFFIRMED
¶7 . Winter attempts to hold the ISP defendants liable for allegedly hosting materials on the internet that Winter claims caused him harm. As the district court held, 47 U.S.C. § 230 expressly grants immunity to the ISP defendants for these alleged actions. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir.1997).