515 P.2d 1139 (Colo.App. Div. 2 1973)
Donald D. DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Theodore M. RILEY, President of the State Board of Optometric Examiners, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 72--390.
Court of Appeals of Colorado, Second Division
September 18, 1973
Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1973.
Wallace, Armatas & Hahn, Harvey P. Wallace, C. Thomas Bastien, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., William Tucker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellees.
SMITH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiff's action to review an order of the State Board of Optometric Examiners. The order in question was entered during the pendency of proceedings initiated by the Board against plaintiff pursuant to its authority to suspend or revoke optometric licenses under C.R.S.1963, 102--1--7(3). During the course of those proceedings, the board ordered plaintiff to submit to an examination by a physician and a psychiatrist and to appear thereafter before the board to answer questions regarding plaintiff's ability and competency to practice optometry. Plaintiff brought this action in district court seeking to prohibit enforcement of the board's order on the grounds that the board had exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such order. The district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and plaintiff appeals that judgment. We affirm.
C.R.S.1963, 102--1--16(2), provides:
'Any person aggrieved by any order of the board under this section may have the same reviewed by the courts of this state in accordance with sections 3--16--1 to 3--16--6 . . ..'
1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 3--16--5(2), provides:
'Final agency action under this or any other law shall be subject to judicial review as provided in this section . . ..'
The board's order did not constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review, and this court will not interfere with the action of an administrative board until such final action has been taken. Lorance v. Colorado State Board of Examiners of Architects, 31 Colo.App. 332, 505 P.2d 47. The district court was therefore correct in its determination that it was without jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
Judgment affirmed.
ENOCH and PIERCE, JJ., concur.