district court normally should entertain an action requesting declaratory judgment when the declaratory relief sought would (1) “serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue,” and (2) would “terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.” Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ind-Com Elec. Co., 139 F.3d 419, 423 (4th Cir.1998). District courts have great latitude in determining whether to grant or deny declaratory relief. Id. Here, a controversy exists between only two parties, the litigants named in the declaratory judgment action. No third-party insurer or otherwise interested party is involved in this case, any related action, nor is another party waiting to be named elsewhere. Cf. id. at 420-21 (<HOLDING>). Neither party here needs to exhaust
holding that a plaintiff may not avoid exhausting the administrative remedies by requesting money damages holding that a party may gain judicial review without exhausting its administrative remedies where pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile where strict compliance would cause irreparable harm and where the applicable statute is alleged to be void on its face holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment holding that a procedural default in exhausting administrative remedies bars relief in federal court holding that declaratory judgment was inappropriate where after exhausting administrative remedies a contractor would have to bring separate actions against the state and other parties in state court