ShareThis Page
Penn State student from Richland Township found dead in apartment |

Penn State student from Richland Township found dead in apartment

Emily Balser
| Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:57 p.m

A Penn State University student was found dead in his apartment by his parents Monday, the university’s student newspaper reported Tuesday.

The university confirmed the death of Charles Cudlipp in a statement to the Tribune-Review.

Voter registration data shows Cudlipp was originally from Richland Township.

Cudlipp was a chemical engineering student and was expected to graduate this summer, according to the statement.

“Our deepest sympathies go out to Charles’ family and friends during this difficult time,” the statement said. “Staff from our Office of Student Affairs are reaching out to his family to offer any and all necessary support.”

Counseling services are available to help the campus cope with the loss.

The Daily Collegian reported Cudlipp was 25 and lived alone in his Happy Valley Motor Inn apartment at 1245 S. Atherton St.

The report said he was discovered by his parents, who were visiting him.

The Collegian said the cause of death is unknown, but foul play isn’t suspected.

State College police couldn’t provide additional information late Tuesday.

Emily Balser is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 724-226-4680, or via Twitter @emilybalser.

Emily Balser is a Tribune-Review staff reporter. You can contact Emily at 412-871-2369, or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.