Emmanuel Holliday v. Centurion Medical

── Emmanuel Holliday v. Centurion Medical ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General ALD-129 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2886 ___________ EMMANUEL TYREE HOLLIDAY, Appellant v. CENTURION MEDICAL /D.O.C. Company; KOLAWOLE AKIN BYO, The Warden of this Jail; CHRISTIN CLAUDIO, Health Services Admin/Medical ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-01310) District Judge: Honorable Colm F. Connolly ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect, Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 7, 2026 Before: SHWARTZ, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed May 20, 2026 ) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Emmanuel Holliday, a former Delaware state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from District Court orders dismissing his claims against two defendants, granting summary judgment in favor of the two remaining defendants, and denying his motion to appoint counsel. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm. I. Holliday filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants: (1) Christine Claudio, a Health Services Administrator; (2) Christine Onofrio, a Consult Coordinator; (3) Centurion Medical/D.O.C. Company (“Centurion Medical”); and (4) Warden Kolawole Akinbyo (“Warden Akinbyo”). Holliday alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was in Delaware state prison as a pretrial detainee. Specifically, Holliday claimed that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his shoulder pain because they did not order an MRI or schedule medical consultations with orthopedic surgeons in a timely manner. The District Court sua sponte dismissed without prejudice Holliday’s claims against Centurion Medical and Warden Akinbyo. Claudio and Onofrio then moved for summary judgment, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether they intentionally acted with deliberate indifference to Holliday’s medical needs or otherwise violated his constitutional rights. The District Court granted that motion. Holliday appealed. II. 2  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(4) (“The notice of appeal encompasses all orders that, for purposes of appeal, merge into the designated judgment or appealable order.”). We exercise de novo review over the District Court’s order sua sponte dismissing Centurion Medical and Warden Akinbyo for failure to state a claim. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We also exercise plenary review over the District Court’s summary judgment decision in favor of the defendants. See Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is prope