In this аction for declaratory judgment under § 64 of the Administrative Procedures Act, plaintiff appeals аs of right from an opinion and order of the circuit court granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition. MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8). We affirm.
On February 8, 1989, plaintiff was discharged by defendants from his position as warden of the Huron Valley Men’s Fаcility on the grounds that plaintiff violated policy directives, institutional *136 procedures and employee guidelines of the Michigan Department of Corrections and the Michigan Civil Service Commission. The charges stemmed in part from plaintiffs loss of a master key to the prison and his failure to notify his supervisor of the loss in a timely manner.
On March 16, 1989, plaintiff requested a declaratory ruling from defendants as to whether the aforementioned directives, procedures and guidelines were promulgated аs rules pursuant to § 33 of the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.233; MSA 3.560(133), and, if not, whether his discharge pursuant to unpromulgatеd rules deprived him of due process of law. Defendants failed to respond to plaintiffs request for a declaratory ruling and plaintiff commenced this action for declaratory judgment under § 64 of the apa. MCL 24.264; MSA 3.560(164).
Defendants subsequently moved for summary disposition admitting that the directives, procedures аnd guidelines were not promulgated as rules pursuant to § 33 of the apa. However, defendants cоntended that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendants also contended that plaintiff was foreclosed from pursuing reliеf in the form of a declaratory judgment pursuant to § 64 of the apa, since plaintiff did not challenge the applicability of the directives, procedures and guidelines.
The circuit court essentially adopted defendants’ rationale and granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition. MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8).
i
Plaintiff first сontends that he was denied due process of law when he was discharged for violat *137 ing directives, procedures and guidelines which were not promulgated as rules pursuant to § 33 of the apa.
The Dеpartment of Corrections is an administrative agency subject to the provisions of the apа.
Martin v Dep’t of Corrections,
In addition, § 101 of the apa provides for judicial review only after all administrative remedies available within an agency have been exhausted unlеss the court determines that immediate review of a preliminary, procedural or intermediate agency action or ruling is required to provide an adequate remedy. MCL 24.301; MSA 3.560(201). As the circuit court notеd in its written opinion, at least two additional levels of administrative relief were available to plaintiff at the time he commenced the instant action. In the event that plaintiff was dissatisfied with the deсision of the grievance hearing officer, he could appeal that decision to the Employment Relations Board and then, if *138 necessary, to the Michigan Civil Service Commission.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial cоurt did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
ii
We also reject plaintiffs claim that the circuit court should have retained jurisdiction and treated his petition for declaratory judgment as a рetition for judicial review under § 101 of the apa. MCL 24.301; MSA 3.560(201). The difficulty in this case is that there was an incomplete record from the relevant administrative agencies. Therefore the circuit court would hаve had no way of ascertaining the merits of plaintiffs claims and any attempt to review those claims would have been without the benefit of a fully developed administrative record. The circuit сourt did not err in declining to retain jurisdiction.
Bentley, supra
at 272;
Human Rights Party v Michigan Corrections Comm,
hi
Plaintiff finally contends that he should not be required to exhaust his administrаtive remedies because the Michigan Civil Service Commission is incompetent to decide constitutional issues and any additional delay would only further prejudice his rights. We disagree.
The mere fact that the Michigan Civil Service Commission cannot provide all of the relief requested does not dispense of the requirement that plaintiff exhaust his administrative remedies before the circuit court aсquires jurisdiction.
O’Keefe
*139
v Dep’t of Social Services,
Affirmed.