Benjamin Hill v. Thomas Rudenick

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: 25-2300
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2300 ___________________________

Benjamin Joseph Hill

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Thomas Keith Rudenick, in his individual and official capacities as a Ramsey County Sheriff’s Deputy

Defendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: February 12, 2026 Filed: February 18, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Minnesota resident Benjamin Hill appeals the district court’s 1 order enforcing a settlement agreement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not err in finding that the settlement agreement was enforceable and that Hill did not enter into the agreement under duress. See W. Thrift & Loan Corp. v. Rucci, 812 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2016) (district court’s finding that a settlement agreement is enforceable is reviewed for clear error); Olmsted v. Saint Paul Public Schs., 830 F.3d 824, 827–28 (8th Cir. 2016) (rejecting appellant’s claim of “legal duress” because Minnesota law only recognizes duress as a defense to contract enforcement when the “agreement is coerced by physical force or unlawful threats”).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable David T. Schultz, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-