MEDFORD, N.J. – A federal judge has allowed portions of a civil rights lawsuit against Medford Township police officers to proceed after a driver alleged he was pulled from his vehicle, handcuffed and detained during an inspection-sticker checkpoint in 2024.
Chief U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb reviewed an amended complaint filed by Steven Michael Surynt, who is representing himself in the case. Surynt sued the Township of Medford, several police officers, a captain and Police Chief Arthur E. Waterman over the June 10, 2024 encounter.
The ruling comes at the preliminary screening stage required because Surynt was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. At this point, the court evaluates whether the allegations are sufficient to state a plausible legal claim; it does not decide whether Surynt’s account is true or whether the officers ultimately violated his rights.
Lawsuit Stems From Medford Traffic Checkpoint
According to Surynt’s amended complaint, he encountered what he described as an “inspection sticker checkpoint or roadblock” in Medford Township.
He alleges officers removed him from his vehicle, placed him in handcuffs and detained him without a warrant, emergency circumstances or other lawful justification.
Those assertions are allegations contained in the lawsuit and have not been established as facts at trial.
The defendants named in the amended complaint include Medford Township, Officer Lange, Cpl. Denning, Officer Riordan, Officer McHugh, Officer Kostue, Capt. William Dunleavy and Chief Waterman.
- The federal lawsuit arises from a June 10, 2024 traffic stop in Medford Township.
- Surynt alleges police removed him from his vehicle, handcuffed him and detained him during an inspection-sticker checkpoint.
- The court’s screening decision determines which allegations are legally sufficient to proceed, not whether Surynt will ultimately win the case.
Because Surynt filed the case without an attorney, Bumb noted that federal courts are required to construe pro se pleadings liberally.
What does it mean that the federal court screened the lawsuit?
Federal law requires courts to review certain complaints filed by people granted in forma pauperis status. The judge determines whether claims are frivolous, legally deficient or seek damages from defendants who are immune before the litigation moves forward.
Judge Applies Federal Standard for Plausible Civil Rights Claims
The opinion explains that a complaint must contain enough factual material to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.”
That standard does not require the judge to decide disputed evidence during screening. Instead, the court generally treats sufficiently pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of determining whether a claim may proceed.
The distinction is particularly important in a lawsuit involving a police encounter. Allowing a claim to survive screening does not amount to a judicial finding that an officer acted unlawfully.
Surynt’s case is being heard in the Camden Vicinage of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Has the judge ruled that Medford police violated Surynt’s constitutional rights?
No. A screening ruling addresses whether allegations are sufficient to continue through the court process. It is not a verdict or factual finding that any defendant committed misconduct.
Case Can Move Into Next Stage of Federal Litigation
The lawsuit names both individual members of the Medford Township Police Department and the municipality itself, meaning the court must separately examine whether Surynt has adequately pleaded claims against each defendant.
The opinion also demonstrates why early federal court rulings can narrow a civil rights case before discovery. Claims that fail the applicable legal standard can be dismissed while sufficiently pleaded claims move forward.
The defendants will have an opportunity to respond to claims that survive the court’s review, and later proceedings can test Surynt’s allegations against police reports, testimony and other evidence.
Nothing in the screening decision establishes liability or an entitlement to damages.
What happens next in the Medford police lawsuit?
Claims that survived the court’s preliminary review can proceed toward service and further litigation. The defendants may respond and challenge the allegations, and Surynt will ultimately bear the burden of proving claims that remain in the case.
The federal case is Steven Michael Surynt v. Township of Medford, et al., Civil Action No. 24-10562, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage.
Sources: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey opinion in Steven Michael Surynt v. Township of Medford, et al., Civil Action No. 24-10562 (RMB/SAK); U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Medford Township police lawsuit, Steven Michael Surynt, Medford NJ, Medford Police Department, New Jersey civil rights lawsuit, police checkpoint lawsuit, Renée Marie Bumb, Camden federal court, Burlington County police, Fourth Amendment New Jersey, Medford traffic stop, federal civil rights case
