(plaintiff brought action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against county for alleged violations of her constitutional rights when the county denied her request to change the zoning of her parcels from agricultural to rural residential, which permits development outside the reach of public facilities; in an earlier state court action brought by the plaintiff due to the denial, a settlement was reached prior to trial in which the county agreed that the parcels should be rezoned because the previous denial had been that the parcels were too close to hog farms and at the time of the settlement, the hog farms were going to be closed; a hearing was held on the rezoning, but the request did not pass because less than a three-fourths majority voted in its favor; a year later the board granted the request, but the housing market (in 2008) had collapsed and the property was no longer worth more in the new classification; plaintiff brought suit in federal court; she alleged invidious discrimination and denial of equal protection because two other properties had been permitted to rezone, retaliation for exercising her first amendment right to bring a lawsuit; the district court granted summary judgment for the county and the plaintiff appealed; the appellate court affirmed summary judgment because there was no evidence of discrimination as the other parcels approved for zoning changes were located farther away from the hog confinement; the first amendment claim also failed because a suit regarding the value of personal property is not a public concern for which first amendment protections would apply; court held plaintiffs damage claim also failed because the housing collapse was not foreseeable by the county and is not liable for unforeseeable risks).