ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BEVERLY R. O'CONNELL, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, all of the records and files herein, and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner objected.

Petitioner argues for the first time in his Objections that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the AEDPA limitations period because he is actually innocent. (Objections at 1-2.) The Court is not required to consider allegations raised for the first time in objections. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000). Notwithstanding Petitioner's failure to raise this claim in a timely manner, the Court determines that it is without merit, and Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling.

A petitioner may qualify for an equitable exception to AEDPA's limitations period by proving actual innocence. McQuiggin v. Perkins, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928, 185 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (2013). But the actual innocence exception has an extremely high threshold requirement which is seldom met. Id. To be credible, a petitioner's claim of actual innocence must be supported "with new reliable evidence—whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence—that was not presented at trial." Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1994). "`[A] petitioner does not meet the threshold requirement unless he persuades the district court that, in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" McQuiggin, 133 S. Ct. at 1928 (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

In support of his claim of actual innocence, Petitioner identifies two witnesses, who were not called at trial by defense counsel, and states that "[h]ad they testified, they would have sworn under oath to petitioner's innocence." (Objections at 2.) Petitioner further states that his counsel knew of this evidence, but did not present it. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner's conclusory statements in support of his actual innocence claim are insufficient to meet the high threshold for qualifying for this form of equitable tolling. While Petitioner identifies the two witnesses who allegedly would establish his innocence, he fails to describe what their testimony would have been had they testified, why the witnesses are reliable, or how their testimony would necessarily show that, in light of this new evidence, no reasonable juror would have convicted him when compared with the evidence presented at trial. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of showing that he is entitled to equitable tolling based on actual innocence.

The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition as untimely be granted and that judgment be entered denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and dismissing this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.