Suzanne Scibek, individually v. Laura Gee Gilbert; Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1457
SUZANNE SCIBEK, individually, and on behalf of her minor children, C.S., J.S.,
E.S.; JACOB SCIBEK; J.S., a minor; E.S., a minor; C.S., a minor,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
LAURA GEE GILBERT; CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:20-cv-02638-DCN)
Submitted: January 13, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023
Before KING, WYNN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Kevin B. Smith, Amanda R. Itterly, HOFFMEN LAW FIRM, LLC, North
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants. Helen F. Hiser, James D. Smith, Jr.,
MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for
Appellee Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Michelle N. Endemann, CLARKSON
WALSH & COULTER, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee Laura Gee Gilbert.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Suzanne and Jacob Scibek sued Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. and one of
its employees, Laura Gee Gilbert, after the Scibeks and Gilbert were involved in a vehicle
collision. The Scibeks brought claims for negligence against Gilbert and Cracker Barrel
as well as a claim for negligent hiring against Cracker Barrel. Cracker Barrel moved for
summary judgment on the two claims against it; Gilbert did not move for summary
judgment on the one claim against her. The district court granted summary judgment for
Cracker Barrel, and the Scibeks appeal that order.
We have jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–546 (1949). Though the district court’s
summary judgment order resolved the claims against Cracker Barrel, the claim against
Gilbert remains pending in the district court. The court’s order, therefore, is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and we must dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --