# FILED Nov. 13, 19 95 Cecil Crowson, Jr . Appellate Court Clerk DELO BROCK, ) ) Petitioner/Appe llant, ) ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9503- CH-00078 VS. ) ) Davidson Chancery ) No. 94-2046-II I TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTION, ) ) Respondent/Appell ee. )

COURT OF APPE ALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
APPEALE D FRO M THE C HANC ERY C OURT O F DAVI DSON COUN TY AT NASHVILLE, TENN ESSEE THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. BRA NDT, CHANC ELLOR

DELO BROCK, #88857 Middle Tennessee Recep tion Center 7177 Cockril l Bend Road Nashvil le, Tennessee 37209- 1005 Pro Se/Petiti oner/Appellant CHARLES W. BURSON Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter PATRICIA C. KUSSMANN Assistant Attorney Gener al 404 James Roberts on Parkway Suite 2000 Nashvil le, Tennessee 37243 Attorney for Respondent/Appell ee

AFFIRMED AND REMAN DED

BEN H. CAN TRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR: TODD, P.J., M .S. LEW IS, J.1 Rule 10( b) of t he Rules ofthe Court of Appeal s reads as f oll ows: The Court, wit h the concu rrence ofall judges parti cipat ing i n the case, may affirm, rever se or modify the act ions ofthe t ri al court by mem o ran dum opinion when a fo rm al o pin ion wo uld ha ve no pre ce de ntia l va lue . W he n a ca se is d ec id ed b y mem orandum opinio n it sha ll be de sign ated "ME MO RA ND UM OP INIO N," shall not be publi shed, an d s ha ll not be cit ed or r eli ed on forany r eason i n a subsequentunrel ated case. - 2 -



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed th e appellant's petition for decl aratory j udgment, filed pur suant to Tenn. Code An n. § 4-5-223, to review the Department of C orrection's calculation of the credits d ue on his pri son sentences. The chan cellor concluded that the app ellant had failed to exhau st his administrative remedies.

It appears from the record that the appellant f irst sought a declaratory judgment from the D epartment of Corre ction. On Ma y 18, 1994 the D epartment advised h im that the inf ormati on he so ught sho uld be p ursued through departmental channel s. The letter concluded by s aying, "I f you have al ready attempted to resolve your questions fo llowing the above procedures, send this office verify ing documentati on and your pet ition."

The parties late r went thr ough the same ste ps in whi ch the appellant was adv ised on July

7, 1984:

Should the above procedures pr ove unsucces sful, send the office veri fying documentation and your petition. Petitions w ithout ver ifying doc umentation wi ll not be reviewed. For the reaso ns stated in theinitial par agraph, your declaratory order request is denied without prejudice and the petition i s returned. R esubmit it w ith the appropriate verifying documentation and your request will be reviewed in accordance with the Uniform Administrati ve Procedures Act in T.C. A. § 5-4-101 et. seq.- 3 - Even before receiving the Department's July 7, 1 994 letter, the appellant filed hi s petition i n the chancery court.

Under Tenn. Code An n. § 4-5-224(b) a declarator y judgment may be sought in the chancery court only after the agency has refused to is sue a declaratory

order. While it might

be argued that

the Department has

refused to issu e the orde r by requ iring t he ap pell ant t o go th rough the a dmin istra tive channels, we think the better view of the situation i s that the Depar tment has merely asked for verification that the appel lant has been thr ough all the steps that make his petiti on ripe for cons ideration. By failing to pr

ovide that v

erification the appellant has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

W e affirm the de cision of the chancery court and rem and the cause to that court for any further pr oceedings that

may become neces sary. Tax the costs on appeal to the appellant.

____________________________ BEN H. CAN TRELL, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_______________________________ HENRY F . TODD, PRESID ING JUDGE MIDDLE SECTION

_______________________________ SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE